Qatar: Migrant Workers
	 — 
	Question

Lord Monks: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what recent assessment they have made of the situation of migrant workers in Qatar.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, we welcome the serious manner in which the Qatari Government are responding to concerns about the treatment of migrant workers. We fully support Qatar’s intention to reform the current labour law. We encourage the Government of Qatar to put forward a timetable for passing and then implementing the proposed legislation. We stand ready to support these efforts where we can.

Lord Monks: My Lords, the House should be aware that 964 migrant workers from India, Bangladesh and Nepal were killed on Qatari building sites in 2012 and 2013. There are many other countries with unrecorded deaths. This is all part of the run-up to the 2022 World Cup. Many migrant workers work under a system called kafala, a medieval bonded labour scheme. Will the Government exert maximum pressure on Qatar to enforce a ban on kafala and proper safety standards on the construction sites? If necessary, will they call for Qatar to lose the right to host the World Cup in 2022? Additionally, will the Government disqualify contractors guilty of poor health and safety practices from tendering for jobs in the UK?

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, the 2022 World Cup is a matter for FIFA. Since I know that there have been considerable allegations in Qatar that the British press are campaigning for the 2022 World Cup to be transferred to the UK, let me make it clear that we entirely accept that it was agreed the 2022 World Cup would take place outside Europe. We have no intention of applying for that particular competition. We might well be interested in a later competition and wish to campaign actively for that.
	On the question of pressure on Qatar, we welcome the moves it is making, but I quote the United Nations Human Rights Council report on the situation in Qatar, discussed the other month:
	“The Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants welcomed the positive legislative developments in Qatar that had made it illegal for sponsors to confiscate passports. However, he noted the need for effective enforcement of that law”.
	We are seeing useful developments in the rhetoric and legislative framework. The question of enforcement is a serious one.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Monks, in raising this issue. Qatar as a relatively progressive Arab state is in a position to give an example to many others around it, not least in the other Trucial states. In addition to the very high levels of fatalities and casualties on building sites, there is a steady flow of wounds and sometimes fatal injuries suffered by women working as domestic labour in the Trucial states, not least as nurses, cooks and nannies. May I therefore strongly support the argument that the United Kingdom Government, who have a special status among the Trucial states, should continue constructively to press Qatar to give the example that it could give to treat migrants in the way that it treats its own citizens?

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: I thank the noble Baroness for raising the question of domestic labour, which is also an issue across the GCC. In the UK’s contribution to the debate at the UN Human Rights Council, our representative made two recommendations; first, to:
	“Reform the sponsorship system, removing the requirement for foreign workers to obtain permission before leaving Qatar or moving jobs”,
	and, secondly, to:
	“Reform the Labour laws to ensure domestic workers are legally protected and to improve the enforcement of these laws ensuring the rights of foreign workers in Qatar are guaranteed”.

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords—

Lord Clinton-Davis: Does the Minister agree that the views of Her Majesty’s Government can be very influential in this matter? Does he further agree that presenting views officially and not being silent would serve an immensely positive purpose?

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, the Government have a close relationship with Qatar and we constantly express our views. We do so also through multilateral and UN channels. One of the issues is that the sending states, mainly south Asian states, do not make as strong representations as many others about the position of workers in Qatar. I have to say in mitigation that the population of Qatar rose by 15% last year, almost entirely accounted for by foreign workers coming in. Part of the problem is that a huge boom is going on and the system does not have the capacity to cope with what is happening as a result.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, while I have every sympathy with the Question and think it is very valid, are we in a position to criticise others when in this country care workers looking after people at home are still being paid about £2 an hour because they get nothing for travel time between jobs? Therefore, it is time that we set our own house in order.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, the noble Baroness makes a very fair point.

Lord Bach: My Lords, what discussions have the Government had—and this follows on from what the Minister said to my noble friend Lord Monks—with FIFA and with the British Football Association regarding migrant workers in Qatar and the 2022 World Cup?

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I am looking round to see whether the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, whose subject this is, is here. FIFA has had a great deal of conversations with the Government of Qatar and others. I have before me a workers charter agreed by FIFA and Qatar—

Lord Bach: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. What discussions have the British Government had?

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: The British Government of course have discussions with FIFA, but, like the International Olympic Committee, this is an autonomous body with which we have a dialogue, but we are unable to give instructions. We support everything that FIFA is doing to try to improve construction issues in relation to the World Cup 2022 and of course we have many other issues relating to the necessary reform of FIFA.

Lord Dubs: Will the Minister confirm that workers are not allowed to join trade unions in Qatar? If they were, might not some of the problems we are talking about be better dealt with?

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, the workers charter issued in January refers to including workers’ representatives in forums to discuss labour conditions. I look forward to that being developed.

Royal Gallery: Restoration
	 — 
	Question

Baroness Trumpington: To ask the Chairman of Committees what progress has been made towards the restoration of the murals in the Royal Gallery; and when the work will be complete.

Lord Sewel: My Lords, two research projects with Cologne University of Applied Science have been run by the Curator’s Office to examine the condition of the Waterloo and Trafalgar murals and to investigate ways to improve their presentation. The initial research is now complete and discussions will take place with the university staff over the summer about the next steps towards restoration. The Works of Art Committee will consider a range of possible options in the autumn.

Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it is now several years since I asked my original Question on this subject. I shall be dead before the damn thing is done.

Noble Lords: No!

Baroness Trumpington: Would I be right in assuming that the Royal Gallery is much admired and loved by everybody, except possibly the French President? There is also the fact that it shows women on the battlefield
	and on fighting ships. I would be grateful if some speed could be shown in the reconstruction—if necessary overpainting—so that we are even more proud of the Royal Gallery when the work is finished.

Lord Sewel: My Lords, I certainly hope it will not be a matter of the noble Baroness looking down kindly on us when the time comes for them to be revealed in their original true glory, or as close to their original true glory as we can get it. Considering the national and international importance of these murals it is important to get it right rather than to get it soon. It is a very challenging task to restore the paintings to as near their original condition as possible. One of the very heartening results of the research is that the original pigment beneath the various layers has survived much more successfully in the Royal Gallery than was the case in the Robing Room. We have the opportunity of achieving a very high level of restoration and we should make sure that we get it right.

Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, I share some of the noble Baroness’s concerns—with the bicentenary of Waterloo coming up next year it seems important to try to get them up to scratch by then. I have noticed around the Palace of Westminster that nearly all the paintings of battles seem to be us defeating the French, which seems a little mean because we have fought most nations in the world. In this centenary of the First World War could we maybe commission a mural representing something such as Jutland or the famous Battle of Amiens in 1918 in time for that commemoration?

Lord Sewel: I am certainly going to duck that one. Commissioning works of art is purely a matter for the Works of Art Committee. Fortunately, that is one of the few domestic Select Committees in this House that I do not chair, and I am very grateful.

Lord Cormack: My Lords, speaking as a member of the Works of Art Committee, I think that is a most admirable suggestion. While I agree with all my noble friend said, would it not be a very good thing in the bicentenary year of Waterloo to concentrate on that particular mural and to have a splendid ceremony where the rededication could be performed by my right honourable and noble friend Lady Trumpington with President Hollande as a guest of honour?

Lord Sewel: Treading lightly around this question, the serious and core thing is that we are responsible for maintaining the integrity and quality of those murals. It is a challenge; various layers have built up. Some of the problems go back to the very early days of the Building when there was a high level, for instance, of smoke pollution. All that has to be dealt with carefully and delicately. I hear what Members understandably say about how wonderful it would be to do it by next year. I repeat: the much more important
	objective is to get it right and make sure that we live up to our responsibilities as custodians of this important piece of our heritage.

Lord Morgan: My Lords, could it not be made clear when we celebrate the Battle of Waterloo that it was an Anglo-German-Dutch victory and the British forces played a fairly small part numerically, although a distinguished one? I declare an interest as one whose press-ganged Welsh ancestor fought at the Battle of Trafalgar.

Lord Sewel: I do not think that I am going to go through a whole list of British military endeavours and divvy out who did what, where and how.

Baroness Maddock: I declare an interest as the recently appointed chairman of the Works of Art Committee. I listened with great interest, and take seriously what Members have said in the House today. Will the Chairman of Committees agree with me that the task is never easy for us? Everybody wants to come from far and wide to look at what we have here, and it is our job to look after it. However, a lot of people at the moment give us adverse press whenever we spend any money on any art in the Palace of Westminster. It is very difficult.
	I hope the Chairman of Committees will support me in a suggestion that I have made to the committee. In the past, many works of art were paid for by Members of this House, so maybe we should mention to people that, when they leave legacies in their will, perhaps a little for works of art here would be one way in which we would have the money to preserve our works of art, make new commissions and not be criticised for spending public money.

Lord Sewel: I am more than happy to agree with most of the points of the noble Baroness. It is difficult to maintain the balance between continuous access and getting on with the job of restoring and maintaining the works of art for which we are responsible. On Members making financial support when they leave this House—or leave more than this House—I gently point out that there is a general view that we ought to decrease the size of the House and welcome retirements. I do not think that we would get an increase in retirements if we said that the price to be paid was coughing up to maintain a picture or painting.

Asylum: Afghanistan Interpreters
	 — 
	Question

Lord Lee of Trafford: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether all the Afghan interpreters who have applied for asylum in the United Kingdom will have their applications processed to enable those who are successful to depart from Afghanistan by the end of 2014.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, claims for asylum can only be made from within the United Kingdom. Therefore no claims have been made by those in Afghanistan. To recognise the contribution of our locally engaged civilians we have a generous ex gratia scheme for those made redundant as a result of draw-down. Separately, to protect those directly employed by us who feel a threat of violence because of that work, we have an intimidation policy. These measures are unrelated to UK asylum policy.

Lord Lee of Trafford: My Lords, is not our national honour at stake here? Can my noble friend confirm that although something like 600 people are eligible to come here, of whom 270 have applied, only two visas have been issued? Who is dragging their feet? Is it the Home Office? Is it the MoD? Or is it a combination of both? Perhaps I may ask my noble friend, who is a man of very considerable personal integrity, to bring this shameful situation to the attention of the Prime Minister, so that he can use his authority to get some priority and resource put into this situation. We have a huge debt of obligation to those who have laid their lives on the line for this country and we have to do something about it before the end of the year.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I am assured that the Home Office is able to provide the necessary resources to carry out the very important task of issuing visas and supporting the relocation of those who are eligible—who stood, as my noble friend said, shoulder to shoulder with us in the toughest circumstances. I have asked my officials as a matter of urgency to work with their colleagues across government, particularly in the Home Office, to ensure that momentum is maintained.

Baroness Coussins: My Lords, would Her Majesty’s Government be prepared to review and widen the dates that restrict eligibility for the scheme if it emerges that there is evidence after the withdrawal of troops that interpreters who worked for us before the current cut-off dates are being threatened by the Taliban?

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I assure the noble Baroness that we keep this matter under serious review the whole time. There are no plans at the moment to review the date. This is not a judgment on the value of any individual staff member’s contribution. We recognise that there are staff who made a valuable contribution but who chose to leave our employment before that date. This is an ex gratia scheme linked to the draw-down from Afghanistan and redundancy on or after 19 December 2012. It is not a retrospective process. When a concern about personal safety exists, our intimidation policy applies.

Lord Reid of Cardowan: My Lords, if the Home Office is able to do this, it raises a simple question—why has it not been done? Will the Minister bring this to the attention of the Home Secretary? While we all support a robust, rational and sensitive set of rules for immigration, there is an overriding
	principle here. This is a debt of honour, and when there is a debt of honour, you should honour the debt. Not to do so not only leaves people’s lives in danger but leaves the reputation of this country tarnished.

Lord Astor of Hever: The noble Lord makes a very good point. Applications are being processed, and I assure the noble Lord that this is well advanced. It is a very complicated process requiring health and security checks. Apart from the need to verify immediate family members, we also have to find local authorities that will agree to take individuals. However, we recognise the commitment that we have given to these people, and we are committed to achieving relocation as quickly as possible.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, when we are engaged in military operations overseas, such as Bosnia and Afghanistan, do we offer financial inducements to members of the Armed Forces to acquire capability in the relevant language?

Lord Astor of Hever: I did not quite understand my noble friend’s question, but I shall read it and write to him.

Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, I have every sympathy for the noble Lord, who is essentially answering for the Home Office, but his answers seem rather woolly. Clearly, it is the mood of this House that these brave people stood by our troops, had their lives at risk and will probably have their lives at risk after the end of this year. On our side, we are quite clear that these people should be allowed into the UK. I understand that the Government announced their policy in June 2013 and expected 600 people to qualify. I am told that two people have so far got a visa. Is this Home Office incompetence? Is it a covert policy of exclusion by delay? If it is neither of those, can the Minister seek an assurance and deliver it to the House that anybody who qualifies will be safely in this country by the end of the year?

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, more than 270 former UK LECs who have been made redundant have been offered and accepted relocation under the scheme. Thus far, two visas are in passports, flights are booked and reception arrangements are being made. We expect a steady stream of visas to come through until all those who are eligible are in the UK. To assure the noble Lord, I stress my personal commitment to this ex gratia scheme and the intimidation policy. I shall do all that I can to keep on top of it.

Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon: My Lords, there have been 276 applications but only two relocations in the last year. It pains me to say this but does my noble friend realise that, even with the most generous interpretation, listening to his manful defence of the Government’s policy to provide protection for Afghan interpreters who have with such devotion and courage given service to our troops, one cannot but conclude that this scheme is, in its application and substance, mean-spirited and shaming to the nation?

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I cannot accept that. The safety of those who have worked for the UK is a major concern for us. Any LEC who has worked directly for Her Majesty’s Government in Afghanistan can come to us and seek protection from violence that is a result of their work for us. In the event of a significant and imminent threat—and a threat of this nature has yet to be presented to us—immediate action, such as moving the individual to a safe house, can be taken. If the only way to protect that individual is to bring them to the UK we can, and we would, do it.

Israel and Palestine: Humanitarian Aid
	 — 
	Question

The Earl of Courtown: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to ensure that humanitarian aid is reaching Israel and Palestine.

Baroness Northover: My Lords, the already chronic humanitarian situation in Gaza is rapidly deteriorating. Ongoing hostilities are making it very difficult and dangerous to deliver humanitarian support. We have increased UK humanitarian support and continue to urge Israel to fulfil its obligations under international humanitarian law to minimise civilian casualties and facilitate the rapid, unimpeded and impartial delivery of relief to civilians.

The Earl of Courtown: I thank the Minister for her response, which I am sure the House will be pleased to hear. I understand that, in the past four years, £340 million has been spent in humanitarian aid to this area. I am glad that my noble friend can confirm that we are making our best efforts to ensure that it reaches those who need it. In this time of increased conflict in that area, are Her Majesty’s Government able to make more funds available? What actions can they take to ensure that the rest of the international community also play their fair part in helping humanitarian aid to that area?

Baroness Northover: My noble friend is absolutely right about the commitment that the UK Government have made. We are the third biggest donor to UNWRA’s general fund, which supports the majority of the Gazan population. Given the rapidly declining situation, we have made more than £5 million available in emergency support. This includes £2 million in new funding to help UNWRA provide immediate emergency assistance for more than 100,000 people. We are also bringing forward £3 million in funding to help the ICRC respond to the worsening situation. We are also working very closely with others to encourage them to engage and support as well in this dire situation.

Lord Turnberg: My Lords, the tragedy that is occurring in this terrible carnage in Gaza can be stopped immediately if Hamas stops firing its missiles that it is storing in UN schools and hospitals. However,
	my question is: what conversations have the Government had with the Government of Qatar about the funding that they have been giving to Hamas to build tunnels into Israel and to buy missiles from Iran, instead of using that money for infrastructure and aid?

Baroness Northover: We urge all in the region to be restrained. There is massive civilian casualty resulting from the conflict there, as the noble Lord will be well aware. We would impress on everybody in this situation to draw back. We need an immediate ceasefire. It was appalling to hear this morning our noble colleague, Valerie Amos, saying that a child an hour is being killed.

Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: While welcoming the Minister’s answer, could I ask her how much of the aid—particularly the £30 million that the Government are giving to the Gaza Strip—is she confident is reaching the real beneficiaries and is not being diverted to other purposes?

Baroness Northover: We have very strong safeguards in place to ensure that the money is spent as intended. As the noble Baroness may know, our financial assistance to the Palestinian Authority is provided through the multi-donor trust fund, which is administered by the World Bank, which very closely monitors Palestinian Authority expenditure. It is absolutely right that we need to make sure that the funds reach those who most need them.

Lord Sacks: My Lords, at this difficult and distressing time, which is surely a source of grief to all of us, will the Minister comment on what a Government not blind to humanitarian concerns but seeking to defend their citizens from missile attack do when missiles are stored in schools, rocket launchers are placed beside hospitals, ambulances are used to transport terrorists, entrances to tunnels are set inside apartment blocks and civilians are used as human shields?

Baroness Northover: The noble Lord will fully recognise that the most important thing is to have an immediate ceasefire on both sides and to try to move forward a peace process which will bring peace and stability to the benefit of the Israelis and the Palestinians. That is what we must aim for.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, Hamas said last night that the rockets will stop in the event that the Israeli Government lift the siege and blockade of Gaza. If we are being serious about stopping those rockets, why cannot we exert extreme pressure on the Israeli Government to cease their policy of blockading Gaza?

Baroness Northover: As I said, we are seeking an immediate ceasefire with no preconditions on either side, which is something that the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, emphasised. It is extremely important that the underlying problems in this area are also addressed. As the noble Lord will know, we press the issue of
	those restrictions all the time, as we do settlements and all the other relevant areas, as well as what Hamas is doing.

Lord Grocott: My Lords—

Lord Dykes: Will my noble friend—

Noble Lords: This side!

Lord Dykes: Will my noble friend explain to the House why the UK Government and other European countries abstained on the war crimes resolution, which was passed by a majority in the United Nations and will have to be followed up, including, of course, as regards any war crimes by Hamas?

Baroness Northover: My noble friend is quite right—we abstained on this with the other EU countries. We are seeking to stop the bloodshed now. However, we urge that all sides act proportionately and take every step to minimise civilian casualties.

Welfare of Cats Bill [HL]
	 — 
	First Reading

A Bill to make provision about the commercial breeding of cats; and for connected purposes.
	The Bill was introduced by Lord Black of Brentwood, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Procedure Committee
	 — 
	Motion to Agree

Moved by The Chairman of Committees
	That the 1st Report from the Select Committee (House of Lords Reform Act 2014: consequential changes to the procedures of the House; Recess tabling of written questions; Legislative Consent Motions) (HL Paper 20) be agreed to.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I congratulate the committee on producing this report. However, I have a question for the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees on paragraph 12, on the tabling of Written Questions. I welcome the extra days which have been inserted so that we can hold the Government to account when we are not sitting. When we are sitting, there is normally a limit of six Written Questions per Peer per day, which seems perfectly reasonable. However, as we are not sitting for six weeks in the summer, will the noble Lord recommend the removal of this limit so that we can have the opportunity to table a few more Written Questions on 1 September?

Lord Sewel: The noble Lord has been a worthy campaigner in this area for some time. I am tempted to answer him by saying, “This is the House of Lords, and the way in which
	change and reform takes place is a relatively slow process”. I know that he is asking to move a little bit further, but at the moment I think that I would counsel him to celebrate his triumph.
	Motion agreed.

Procedure Committee
	 — 
	Motion to Agree

Moved by The Chairman of Committees
	That the 2nd Report from the Select Committee (Amendments to the Standing Orders relating to Private Business) (HL Paper 32) be agreed to.
	Motion agreed.

Standing Orders (Private Business)
	 — 
	Motion to Approve

Moved by The Chairman of Committees
	That the Standing Orders relating to Private Business be amended as follows:
	Standing Order 12 Posting of notices in case of tramway, etc., bills (HC 12)
	Line 11, after “in” insert “, or where that is not reasonably practicable, in some conspicuous position as close as is reasonably practicable to,”
	Line 15, after the first “in” insert “, or where that is not reasonably practicable, in some conspicuous position as close as is reasonably practicable to,”
	Line 19, after “road” insert “, or where that is not reasonably practicable, in some conspicuous position as close as is reasonably practicable to the street or road”
	Standing Order 12A Posting of notices in case of tramway, etc., bills (HC 12)
	Leave out Standing Order 12A and insert—
	“In the case of a bill by which it is proposed to stop up or divert any specified public footpath or bridleway, not later than 20th November notice of the proposal shall be displayed in a prominent position—
	at each end (“the notifiable end”) of the part of the footpath or bridleway proposed to be stopped up or diverted; or
	where the notifiable end is not reasonably accessible or its exact location is not readily visible, at some other place where the notice is likely to come to the attention of persons seeking to use the footpath or bridleway.”
	Standing Order 27 Deposit of plan, book of reference, section, etc. (HC 27)
	Line 98, after “Sewer” insert “or water pipe the internal diameter of which exceeds 1 metre”
	Line 104, after “waterwork” insert “(not including any underground pipe the internal diameter of which does not exceed 1 metre)”
	Standing Order 39 Deposit of copies of bills at government departments and public bodies (HC 39)
	Line 4, leave out paragraph 2
	Standing Order 55 Section (HC 55)
	Line 6, at end insert “by reference to Ordnance Survey or Chart datum”
	Line 8, leave out from “thereof” to end of line 17.
	Motion agreed.

Insurance Bill [HL]
	 — 
	Motion to Refer to Second Reading Committee

Moved by Lord Newby
	That the bill be referred to a Second Reading Committee.
	Motion agreed.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights
	 — 
	Motion to Take Note

Moved by Lord Alton of Liverpool
	To move that this House takes note of international compliance with Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights concerning freedom of belief.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I begin by thanking all noble Lords who will participate in this balloted debate, which draws attention to Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Right. Article 18 states:
	“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance”.
	Today we will hear from many distinguished Members of your Lordships’ House, including my noble friend Lord Sacks, who says in The Dignity of Difference:
	“The great faiths provide meaning and purpose for their adherents. The question is: can they make space for those who are not its adherents, who sing a different song, hear a different music, tell a different story? On that question, the fate of the 21st century may turn”.
	The urgency of that challenge was reflected in a recent speech by the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right honourable Douglas Alexander. Among systematic violations of Article 18, he particularly drew attention to what he described as “anti-Christian persecution”, which he said,
	“must be named for the evil that it is, and challenged systematically by people of faith and of no faith”.
	I know that we will hear later from the noble Lord, Lord Bach, who will expand on that important speech.
	Two recent cases underline the universal applicability of Article 18. A young Indonesian man, Alexander Aan, was jailed for more than two years simply for declaring his atheism on Facebook. Mubarak Bala, a Nigerian, was confined to a mental institution for the same reason. Ben Rogers of Christian Solidarity Worldwide visited Alexander Aan in prison in Indonesia and campaigned for his release. Such welcome advocacy by a group of one religious persuasion working for the freedom of another, whose beliefs are different—hearing different music, telling a different story—is echoed in a letter by world Buddhist leaders, including His Holiness the Dalai Lama, calling for an end to violence against Muslims in Burma. The Dalai Lama is emphatic that:
	“The violence in Buddhist majority countries targeting religious minorities is completely unacceptable. I urge Buddhists in these countries to imagine an image of the Buddha before them before they commit such a crime”.
	Not only is Article 18 a universal human right; it is a human right that is violated universally. Last year, under the admirable chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on International Freedom of Religion or Belief, of which I am an officer, published Article 18: An Orphaned Right. It noted that,
	“almost 75% of the world’s population live in countries with high levels of government restrictions on freedom of religion or belief”.
	Thanks to major speeches by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and the Prime Minister, and the crucial work of the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, the introduction of the European Union Guidelines on Freedom of Religion or Belief and the excellent work of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, this issue has been given greater prominence. I know that today’s important debate will contribute to that.
	Yet, compared with Canada’s Office of Religious Freedom and its ambassador-at-large, the excellent Andrew Bennett, or the US State Department and the US Commission of International Religious Freedom, the Foreign Office has just one official specifically focused on freedom of religion, and only for a third of her time. The FCO has said that it wants to develop a toolkit on freedom of religion or belief for diplomats, stating that,
	“every minister at the FCO is an ambassador for religious freedom, raising and promoting these issues in the countries with which they engage”.
	But how will they do that? How are our diplomats trained in religious literacy? Compare the £34 billion spent on military operations since the Cold War with the paltry resources deployed in promoting Article 18
	—in promoting religious coexistence, public discourse and dialogue, foundational to building peaceful societies in a world increasingly afraid of difference.
	In an all too brief survey of worldwide violations of Article 18, I inevitably begin in the Middle East, where, in the midst of an orgy of violence and brutality, we are fast approaching a time when Christianity will have no home in its ancient homelands. In Syria, the brutal murder in April of the 75 year-old Dutch Jesuit Father Franz van der Lugt, who had served there for 50 years, working in education and with disabled people, illustrates why an estimated 450,000 Christians have fled. Followers of other religions, notably the Mandeans, Yizidis, Baha’is and Ahmadis suffer similarly.
	In Iraq, a Christian population of 1.4 million has been reduced to 150,000. In recent weeks, the depredations, beheadings and crucifixions by ISIS are almost beyond belief. For the first time in almost 2,000 years, Mosul, Iraq’s second largest city, no longer has a Christian community. Its churches are now closed, most having been desecrated. In what has been described as “religious cleansing”, ISIS says that anyone who refuses to convert and defies it will be,
	“killed, crucified or have their hands and feet cut off”.
	ISIS has taken a sledgehammer to the tomb of Jonah, replaced the cross with the black Islamic flag on top of Mosul’s St Ephraim’s Cathedral, and beheaded or crucified any Muslim who dares to dissent. This week in Istanbul, the head of Turkey’s Directorate of Religious Affairs, Professor Dr Mehmet Görmez, in his address to the participants of the World Islamic Scholars Peace, Moderation and Common Sense Initiative conference said that 1,000 Muslims are being killed each day, and that 90% of the killers are also Muslims. He said:
	“They are being killed by their brothers”.
	Yesterday, the archbishops of Iraq united in their condemnation of these events but also called on the outside world to help. The only people who have successfully withstood ISIS are the Kurdish Peshmerga forces. To its credit, the Kurdish leadership has been generously offering safe haven to Mosul’s fleeing Christians and has asked for international aid to help it do so. This crisis justifies huge humanitarian and resettlement aid that could include micro and business loans to help people to help themselves. The West must also press the Gulf to end the funding of ISIS. Where in Mosul is the “responsibility to protect”, let alone Article 18? I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us.
	Elsewhere, in Egypt, these are increasingly dangerous and menacing times for freedom of belief. As honorary president of the UK Copts, I saw the way in which Copts were targeted by the Muslim Brotherhood. Last year, in the single largest attack on Christians in Egypt since the 14th century, more than 50 churches were bombed or burnt. It was Egypt’s Kristallnacht. What priority do we give to Egypt’s minorities as we engage with the new President?
	In Iran, the so-called moderate, Hassan Rouhani, in the 12 months since he was elected, has executed 800 people and imprisoned and tortured many others. Iran continues to target religious minorities, particularly
	Baha’is, whose cemeteries have been desecrated; 136 Baha’is are in prison, some since 2008. As “unprotected infidels” they can be attacked with impunity. Repression against Christians in Iran includes: waves of arrests and detentions; raids on church gatherings; raids on social gatherings; harsh interrogations; physical and psychological torture, including demands to recant and to identify other Christians; extended detentions without charge; violations of due process; convictions for ill defined crimes or on falsified political charges; economic targeting through exorbitant bail demands; and threats of execution for apostasy. What priority will our new chargé d’affaires in Tehran be giving these Article 18 issues when he meets the regime’s leadership?
	I return now to Sudan and the treatment of Meriam Ibrahim, which was described by the Prime Minister as “barbaric”. In May, this young mother of two was charged, and sentenced to death for apostasy and 100 lashes for adultery. Having refused to renounceher faith, she was forced to give birth shackled in a prison cell in Khartoum. Happily, given a debate where we will be hearing so much that is so very sad and tragic, international pressure, often led by young internet campaigners, has led to her release. This morning, she arrived safely in Italy. However, Meriam Ibrahim’s case is not an isolated one. Archaic and cruel laws lead to stonings and lashings, with Al-Jazeera reporting that in one recent year, 43,000 women were publicly flogged.
	In Nigeria, another crisis is looming for religion and unfolding on a daily basis. There are reports of collusion between elements of the military and Islamist forces. This week marks 100 days since Boko Haram abducted more than 200 schoolgirls in Chibok. Are we any nearer to finding them? My noble friend Lady Cox has just returned from Nigeria and will have much more to say about the situation and her report documenting that jihadist violence.
	As the Minister responds to Article 18 abuses in Nigeria, might we hear something, too, about the plight of Christians in Kenya, who face increasing threats and attacks from al-Shabaab, and in Eritrea—another serious violator of freedom of religion? The UN has just established a Commission of Inquiry on Eritrea, and I look forward to hearing how we will assist its work.
	I have focused extensively on the Middle East and Africa, but across Asia, Article 18 faces serious threats as well. We will hear from the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, about the situation in Pakistan. Think of the bombing last September of the Anglican church in Peshawar, killing 127 and injuring 250, of the attacks on Shias and Ahmadis or of the imprisonment of and death sentences on Christians, such as Asia Bibi, charged with blasphemy. For challenging those laws, Shahbaz Bhatti, the Minister for Minority Affairs, was assassinated in 2011, and no one has been brought to justice.
	Meanwhile, in Burma, Muslims are facing growing religious intolerance. In March 2013, I visited a village just outside Naypyidaw. In the charred embers of a burnt-out madrassah, I took statements from the few Muslims who had not fled. I met Rohingya Muslims
	and heard from ethnic Kachin and Chin Christians facing terrible persecution. Proposed new legislation to restrict religious conversions and interreligious marriage will hardly help; practical initiatives countering hate speech and intolerance might. Could we not ask the UN Secretary-General to visit Burma, specifically to address rising religious intolerance, and encourage the establishment of an international and independent inquiry into the violence in Rakhine state, Kachin state and other parts of the country?
	Elsewhere in Asia, religious intolerance is rising, too, for example in Indonesia. I would welcome the Minister’s response to CSW’s new report, Indonesia: Pluralism in Peril, and the Government’s view of Prabowo Subianto’s attempts to undermine religious coexistence and his challenge to this week’s election results. There are also threats to Article 18 in India, with a BJP attack on an evangelical church in Uttar Pradesh last week; in Sri Lanka, where anti-Muslim violence has erupted; in Bangladesh, where, earlier this month, nuns were brutally attacked and beaten; in Malaysia, where a court has ruled that only Muslims can use the term “Allah”, even though Christians have traditionally also used that same term in their texts and in their languages; and in Brunei, where a full Sharia penal code is being introduced.
	Turning to the Far East, I hope we will hear whether we have protested about the demolition of Protestant and Catholic churches there; the continued detention of the Catholic bishop of Shanghai, Thaddeus Ma, arrested in 2012; and the well-being of the Tibetan Buddhist monk and scholar Tenzin Lhundup, about whom nothing has been heard since his arrest in May, and the self-immolation of 131 Tibetans since 2009. In 2009, I visited Tibet with the noble Lord, Lord Steel. Together, we published our report Breaking the Deadlock and, in highlighting the religious dimension, we argued:
	“Any attempts to resolve the political situation … must take due account is of the profound spiritual life of Tibetan people”.
	In Laos and Vietnam, the situation is perilous; I have given the noble Lord details. We had a debate only yesterday about what some have described as genocide in North Korea. For 10 years, I have chaired the all-party group and I commend the Hansard report of yesterday’s debate to all Members of the House.
	As I have outlined in a speech which rather inadequately has tried to set the scene for the many more detailed interventions which will follow, Article 18 is under threat in almost every corner of the world. As we approach the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta, we should recall that, long before Article 18, it asserted the importance of religious freedom.
	Societies which deny such freedoms are invariably unhappy societies. Research shows that there is a direct link between economic prosperity and religious freedom. In 1965, Dignitatis Humanae, the Second Vatican Council’s proclamation on religious freedom, said correctly that a society which promotes religious freedom will be enlivened and enriched and one that does not will decay.
	Article 18 is a foundational human right—many would say the foundational right—because, while there should be no hierarchy of rights and all rights are interdependent, without the freedom to choose, practise,
	share without coercion and change your beliefs, what freedom is there? As my noble friend Lord Sacks says, on this question, the fate of the 21st century may turn. I beg to move.

Lord Patten: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has just pointed to the clear and indisputable fact that religious pluralism is in the deepest peril worldwide. My sense is that this is at its highest point today within the Muslim world, despite the terrible fate of Christians in Mosul and elsewhere in Iraq that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, pointed to. We must all deplore the attacks of Sunni on Shia, of Shia on Sunni and of both Shia and Sunni, when they can, on Alawites and Ismailis. It is Muslim on Muslim, exactly as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said.
	I predict that this terrible intolerance of one sort of Muslim for another is spreading fast from the near and Middle East with attendant violence, even now, to countries such as Indonesia, which is the largest Muslim-majority nation on earth and has hitherto had quite a good reputation for religious pluralism and interreligious harmony.
	Of course, Christians of different sorts have been just as bad in centuries past. We must never forget that. In England a few centuries ago, my co-religionists routinely burned or eviscerated and cut up the co- religionists of the right reverend Prelates on the Bishops’ Bench. When times altered politically, the Protestants took the chance to return the grisly compliment to my co-religionists. This is a terrible stain on both of us, which we must never forget. It can never be eradicated, any more than the joint attacks by both forms of Christianity on the Jewish faith, particularly in Europe, which are another stain on our history. Fingers should be pointed not at individual Muslims but simply at present facts. Centuries and horrors later, we all go to each other’s churches, visit each other’s synagogues and, despite terrible attacks on the latter which still happen in so-called civilised Europe and while our theological debate can be pretty vicious within different faiths, interfaith harmony more or less obtains between us.
	Alas, in the Muslim world interfaith disharmony is spreading fast, not diminishing. That may take not just decades but centuries to play out until it reaches what Christians and Christians and Jews have managed to reach, if the lamentable history of interfaith warfare is any guide.
	The noble Lord, Lord Alton, has already pointed to Indonesia. We have the danger of that country being next. It is a complex country that I have visited. So much depends on the actions about freedom of belief by the new President. He faces increasing harassment, discrimination and violence, which fly in the face of the Indonesia constitution, against not just Christians but Ahmadis and adherents of traditional indigenous faiths and beliefs. Only zero tolerance by President Yudhoyono towards religious intolerance will stop the rot spreading, to the great disadvantage of minority religions and the stability and peace of the many islands that make up Indonesia. In the short
	term, Christian churches face persecution, such as happened this Thursday at churches such as HKBP Philadelphia church in Bekasi or the Yasmin church in Bogor, to give just two examples.
	These threats spread and we see them spreading now, today, into Brunei in a state-sponsored way. There, the new penal code introduced by the ruler brings full-on Sharia penalties for those of other beliefs or those wishing even to change their beliefs. I have been trying to tot up the number of international agreements this breaks under the new Brunei code, starting with the declaration of human rights, through to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, both ratified by Brunei, to the ASEAN charter on respect for fundamental freedoms, under Article 2. The list lengthens. Unless Brunei draws back from the introduction of severe penalties of the most violent physical sort for even the propagation of faiths other than Islam or for persuading people to change religion, it will unleash a moral, civil and religious tiger within Brunei, and that country will end up turning on itself.

Lord Anderson of Swansea: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on his timely initiative. He gave many examples. In Mosul last weekend the Islamic state effectively declared war on the Christians of Iraq. They may soon be given the choice: convert or face the sword. Some 200 schoolgirls, as yet unaccounted for, were taken by Boko Haram in northern Nigeria. In May we learnt of the fate of Meriam Ibrahim who, happily, just today has reached Europe. How many other cases of a similar nature have we not heard of? All are examples of a wider pattern of religious intolerance, mainly by Islamic extremists and the ignoring of Article 18 principles.
	The good news, among the gloom, is that there is now a new recognition of the problem. I cite the all-party report on Article 18 and congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, and her colleagues on that. I pay warm tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi. Her speech at Georgetown University on 15 November last year was heartfelt and powerful and has been reflected in a new focus in the annual Foreign and Commonwealth Office human rights report.
	His Royal Highness Prince Charles delivered a remarkable speech to Middle East faith leaders at Clarence House last December, where he said:
	“It seems to me that we cannot ignore the fact that Christians in the Middle East are, increasingly, being deliberately targeted by fundamentalist Islamist militants”.
	Last month I organised a visit on the subject by a Council of Europe colleague and was happily amazed by the number of NGOs in London that are involved with this problem. The fact is that of the 131 countries of a broadly Christian culture, not one lacks religious toleration. Of the 49 countries of a Muslim culture, 17 tolerate no other religion. Pew Research shows that Christians are the most increasingly persecuted for their faith; Muslims are the second but that is mainly Muslim on Muslim save, for example, in Burma and
	Sri Lanka. Of course, we should not forget the plight of the peaceful Baha’is. The UN special rapporteur on human rights in Iran states that:
	“At least 734 Baha’is have reportedly been arrested since 2004 and 136 are currently detained”.
	The same report stated, on Christians:
	“In recent years, Christians, many of whom are converts from Muslim backgrounds, have faced a similar pattern of persecution”.
	Why does it concern us? It concerns us because world peace depends on building bridges across such divides. States that honour Article 18 will honour other human rights. How do we, in the United Kingdom, respond? We can respond bilaterally, giving a good example by promoting human rights generally at home and not diminishing the work of the Council of Europe convention on human rights, for example. Secondly, we can focus not only on Christians, but highlight the persecution of Shia in Mosul, for example. We can speak up and express indignation in, for example, the annual human rights report. Equally, and more controversially, we should consider some conditionality on aid for those countries that are the major defaulters in this area.
	Multilaterally, we are now a member of the United Nations Human Rights Council. Have we taken any initiatives in this field? There is EU conditionality. Are the EU External Action Service and the high representative adequately staffed in this area? The Council of Europe has a series of relevant partnership agreements with Morocco, Jordan and Palestine.
	The overall situation is worsening though there are some signs of increasing recognition of the problem.
	“Some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to Jesus, ‘Teacher, rebuke your disciples!’ … ‘I tell you,’ he replied, ‘if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out’”.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, I, too, join in the congratulations that have been expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on giving us this opportunity to deal with violations of Article 18 around the world, in particular the violations by Muslim on Muslim which have been mentioned by all three noble Lords who have spoken so far.
	I want to ask what the Government are doing in particular about the assassinations and massacres of Shia Muslims in Pakistan by the terrorist organisations Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamaat, and Tehreek-e-Taliban. These organisations share a common ideology based on returning to the principles of governance and legal systems that they believe were followed by the rightly guided caliphs who succeeded the Prophet in the 7th century. They share a hatred of other forms of Islam, including particularly the Shia, who form 20% of the population of Pakistan. However, anybody who does not share the terrorists’ medieval beliefs is seen as a target, including Ahmadi Muslims and Christians, who are also victims of targeted assassinations and legal persecution under the blasphemy laws.
	To see the destination to which these people would take Pakistan, look at what is happening in the areas of Syria and Iraq occupied by ISIS, a similar band
	of off-the-wall genocidal thugs. They have executed thousands of Shia and, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, are driving out the 4,000 year-old Christian community of Mosul after stripping them of all their property. The Pakistani fundamentalists say on the internet and at public meetings that the Shia are infidels who must be killed. In 2013, the International Imam Hussain Council recorded nearly 700 Shia murders. The actual number was higher because reports dried up after media workers were killed and threatened.
	The Pakistan army has launched a major operation against the terrorist bases in North Waziristan, but military action is also needed to counter the terrorism in Sindh and Punjab. The anti-crime campaign in Karachi, which has been going on for nearly a year, has not been a success. The newspaper Dawn reported that, in the first few months, several TTP killers had been arrested but their political masters raised a hue and cry. Both Imran Khan and Nawaz Sharif supported Aurangzeb Farooqi, head of the ASWJ, when he stood under the banner of the Wahhabi alliance at the 2013 elections. He was one of 53 alleged terrorists whose candidature raised not a word of protest from the conventional parties. These parties are naive enough to believe in the existence of the “good Taliban” who can be persuaded to play by the rules of democracy and the UDHR. But when negotiations were attempted in February, there was no sign that the terrorists would abandon their objective of transforming Pakistan into a Wahhabi caliphate.
	The spread of violent extremism in Sindh, and in Karachi in particular, is fuelled by the growth of religious seminaries peddling a doctrine similar to Wahhabism and funded by sources in the Gulf, and Saudi Arabia in particular. According to the New York Times, there are 4,000 of these seminaries across Sindh and the ASWJ has signed up 50,000 members in the province in parallel. In Islamabad, 26 unauthorised Deobandi mosques provide sanctuary to TTP-ASWJ terrorists. There is no system of inspection of mosques to ensure that their curriculum is within the law—a matter which should interest us in view of the revelations about schools in Birmingham.
	It is the ideology that says God orders its adherents to kill people with different beliefs that needs to be eliminated. The UN Human Rights Council should identify and block the funding that spreads religious hatred, and we should press far more robustly for the infamous blasphemy laws in Pakistan to be repealed.
	In April, the Select Committee on International Development asked the Government to produce clear evidence that our aid programme was effective in reducing the extremist threat in Pakistan. In response, the Government pointed out that,
	“Education is vital to transforming Pakistan’s future and is where a significant proportion of our funds are directed. This is firmly in the UK’s own national interest”.
	However, the country has one of the highest illiteracy rates in the world, and the popularity of the madrassas is largely due to the inadequacy of the public education system. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister will elaborate on how we assess value for money in our educational spending in Pakistan and how it combats religious hatred and intolerance.

Baroness Cox: My Lords, I also congratulate my noble friend on this important debate. Time only allows me to highlight two often forgotten situations: the plight of Ahmadis, and northern Nigeria, which I recently visited.
	Ahmadi Muslims in Pakistan continue to suffer violence, murder and attacks on their mosques, businesses and properties. Although they adhere to their principle of “love for all, hatred for none”, they also suffer persecution in Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Bulgaria and the Middle East. I wish I could say much more, but time only allows me to put this concern on the record.
	In Nigeria, the 12 northern states and Plateau state have suffered for many years from conflicts associated with religious tensions and the nomadic Fulani. Thousands of Christians and many Muslims have been killed. Hundreds of churches and some mosques have been burnt. Systematic discrimination and repeated attacks have led the Anglican Bishop of Kano to describe as “religious cleansing” the mass exodus of non-indigene Christians long before Boko Haram arrived.
	Boko Haram’s agenda is the expulsion of all Christians from northern Nigeria. Many Muslims who do not support Boko Haram have also been slaughtered, while bombings in public places inflict death and injury indiscriminately. I and a small group from my NGO, HART, returned just two weeks ago from those areas. The suffering wrought by Boko Haram is devastating. There are almost daily reports of killings of civilians. Reliable statistics are hard to ascertain, but an estimated 5,000 people have been killed since January. Widely reported bombings this year include three on Abuja, with over 430 deaths, and two in Jos, killing 125 people. Kaduna, Kano, Bauchi and other north-eastern cities have also suffered regular bombings.
	The majority of Boko Haram’s victims are killed during the almost daily attacks on villages across the north-east that receive far less attention. Just three examples while we were in the region include attacks on 30 June in Bau, Taraba state, with 300 homes burnt, many people killed and everything destroyed including the church and all the crops. On the same day there was an attack on a Christian community near Gwallaga in Bauchi state. On 28 June, Fan in Plateau state, which we visited, was attacked in what local people call a jihad assault with heavy guns and trucks.
	The scale of abductions is horrific. Even before the widely publicised kidnapping of the schoolgirls at Chibok, at least 1,800 people had already reportedly been abducted in Maiduguri, and 60 girls and 31 boys have subsequently been abducted. Boko Haram’s hatred of western education and education for girls has resulted, since 2012, in the burning of more than 300 schools, with more than 10,000 children deprived of education. Some 173 teachers have been killed this year. Some live in such terror that they will not even carry a pen as it would indicate their profession. Brutal attacks on teachers on school property have been reported with security forces standing by.
	Many people are concerned by indications that Boko Haram is supported by senior figures in the military and the Government, by its increasingly sophisticated training and weaponry, by the allegations of evidence of international support from Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Iran, by links with al-Shabaab, and by the use of foreign mercenaries from Syria, Chad, Niger and Libya. Consequently, there is very widespread anxiety over the possible disintegration of the nation of Nigeria and/or the spread of militant Islam beyond the northern states to other parts of the country; and that the President and the Government do not have the will or the capacity to withstand the process of Islamisation spearheaded by Boko Haram.
	More positively, there are creative initiatives to foster reconciliation between communities fractured by violence between Christians and Muslims. We visited one programme in Jos and were deeply encouraged by the friendships between the different faith traditions. It is hoped that such confidence-building measures will reduce the propensity for renewed violence and help Muslims who do not wish to radicalise to withstand pressures from extremists such as Boko Haram. But it remains to be seen whether these positive developments at grass-roots level can make a significant difference for the future of the nation.
	I ask the Minister: what representations have Her Majesty’s Government made to the Government of Nigeria to ensure the security of all civilians, the protection of their right to freedom of religion and belief, and the provision of humanitarian assistance to the victims of Boko Haram’s assaults? What assistance is being given by DfID both to provide humanitarian assistance to those victims and to support those much needed initiatives to promote reconciliation and confidence-building between Christian and Muslim communities, particularly in the epicentres of violence, such as Bauchi and Jos, which are the current front lines in the battle against Islamist extremism, which poses such grave threats for the future of the nation and, ultimately, further afield throughout Africa?

Lord Cormack: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, gave us a splendid and comprehensive opening speech, for which we are all extremely grateful. It is a particular pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. I have unstinted admiration for her courage, tenacity, energy and all that she does to stand up for what is good, honest, holy and of good report.
	A civilised country must have as its hallmark that it allows its citizens to believe in peace and to worship in public without any threat. In the admirable report produced by my noble friend Lady Berridge and others, it is shameful to read that in 139 countries between 2006 and 2010 Christians were harassed. Although I am proud to be a Christian and we live in what is still essentially a Christian country, we should all be concerned, whether the persecution is of Muslims in Burma, Hindus in Pakistan, Falun Gong in China or Baha’i in Iran.
	In the brief time I have, I would like to make one or two concrete proposals to my noble friend who will respond to this debate. First, I would like to see a unit
	in No. 10 devoted to religious freedom around the world. Secondly, I would like to see a high-level ambassador appointed to travel the world and give this message. He may not thank me for the suggestion but who better than my right honourable friend William Hague, who will have time on his hands next year? As the author of a notable biography of William Wilberforce, who better to press these points home?
	I would also like us to have another of these summits. Summits seem to be the flavour of the time. We had one recently on female genital mutilation—very important indeed. We have had others. But a summit in London summoned by and addressed by the Prime Minister and the other political leaders could do a great deal to focus world attention on this terrible problem. It is a terrible problem because the future of civilisation—no less—is at stake.
	Progress can be made. I speak with some small personal knowledge here. When I entered another place in 1970, I helped to form, with the noble Lord, Lord Janner of Braunstone, the campaign for the release of Soviet Jewry. I spoke to persecuted Jews in Moscow as the KGB was knocking at their doors to arrest them. In 1990, 20 years later, as chairman of an international human rights organisation, I—who had been forbidden any visa to go into the Soviet Union, who had had the Soviet embassy door slammed in my face—was there in the heart of the Kremlin handing a Bible to the chef de cabinet of Mr Gorbachev, symbolic of a million that they were allowing in. During the course of that conversation, I was told that by the end of the year, no one in the Soviet Union would be in prison for their religious belief. We have all been reminded recently that what is going on in Russia at the moment is not all sweetness and light, and we are deeply exercised by what we have heard. But, nevertheless, the fact that such progress could be made in those 20 years, and that even now Christians in Russia are indeed allowed to worship in freedom, as are others, is the mark of real progress.
	Last Sunday I attended a patronal festival in St Margaret’s Church, Westminster. It was the feast of St Margaret of Antioch and the Dean of Westminster preached a moving and splendid sermon. He referred to the desecration of Mosul and spoke, with the degree of concern and embarrassment that we all feel, about some of the dictatorships that did allow Christians and others to worship in freedom. We must address what has happened, unequivocally declare war on extremism wherever it is to be found, and by doing the sort of things I proposed a moment ago, this Government could play a significant part in doing precisely that.

Lord Parekh: My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, for securing this debate and introducing it so well. The freedom to profess and practise religion is obviously a fundamental human right, so I will not spend any time emphasising its importance. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, gave us a catalogue of all the various countries where this right has been systematically violated, and we have seen horrendous cases of religious hatred, bigotry and violence.
	I want to shift the focus slightly. Although we have been looking at the rest of the world, it might not be entirely amiss to look at ourselves from time to time.
	Let us consider, for example, the controversy in France about wearing the hijab; Muslim girls are not allowed to wear it. There is the referendum in Switzerland which has declared that minarets on mosques should not exceed a certain height. This is not only a matter for day-to-day politics. It has been embodied into the Swiss constitution so it cannot be changed without an enormous amount of effort. Let us consider the trouble that Sikhs encountered here in our own country in trying to wear their turbans when working on building sites and so on. I want to suggest that, while it is absolutely vital that we should fight all forms of religious bigotry where it exists, it might be useful to look at the kind of difficulties that countries which are otherwise well-meaning face in implementing religious freedom. Extremes are easy to spot and to deal with, but what is not so easy is dealing with the practices of countries like our own, or India or most others, that mean well but get into certain difficulties and face dilemmas. I thought I would alert noble Lords to around half a dozen of the difficulties which different countries have faced from time to time.
	The right to profess religion includes the right to propagate it, although it is striking to note that Article 18 makes no reference to the right to do so. However, we all recognise that religious freedom must include the right to propagate it. How far does propagating one’s religion go? Does it include proselytising? If it does, how far can proselytising go? Can you use financial inducements in the way so many American evangelicals have done in India? Can you use social or moral tricks such as saying, “If you do not convert to Christianity or Islam, your soul will be condemned to damnation”? When these things happen in certain countries, naturally people get a little worried and begin to ask themselves what legitimate limits might be placed on religious freedom. That is one area of controversy.
	Another area is this. Religious freedom is fine, but religion includes all manner of beliefs. What sorts of belief might we tolerate and what might we not? For example, Catholics have taught over the years that Jews killed their Lord and are guilty of deicide. Is that the kind of belief that should be freely allowed? Should Muslims be freely allowed to tell their children that all idolaters—unfortunately, I, as a Hindu, would be an idolater—are condemned to go to hell and should be summarily dispensed with?
	Thirdly, there are religious practices: church bells, for example, or muezzins calling people to prayer, or wearing a hijab, which is the kind of problem the French faced. Should all religious practices be allowed? Going a step further, there are religiously based social practices. For example, if my religion says polygamy is permitted, should it be allowed? If my religion says untouchability is sanctioned, should it be allowed?
	Fourthly, there is the scope of religious freedom. This is the problem they faced in Switzerland. Minarets became a problem not in themselves, but because it was felt that minarets of a certain height changed the landscape and the identity of the country or of the area in which they were located. That is something
	that worried them. It was not a question of human rights because the question cannot be articulated in the language of human rights. No one’s human rights were violated. It can be articulated only in the language of collective identity. Does a nation or culture have a right to a certain kind of environment and landscape in which it can recognise itself?
	My suggestion is simply that, while we ought to concentrate on these enormous acts of religious violence and hatred and deal with them as effectively as we can, there are two important issues to remember. First, problems to do with religious freedom arise in all societies—civilised and so-called not so civilised. Secondly, religions over the centuries have lived in peace in one form or another. We need to ask ourselves what has happened in modernity and what new forces it has generated, so that we can understand why people who once knew how to live together—had developed traditions, good sense and practices of living together—suddenly are at each other’s throat.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for introducing the debate. In recent years, we have seen how closely foreign affairs and home affairs interact. For that reason, I strongly welcome the statement by 100 British Muslim imams against young men going to Syria, Iraq and other places for jihad. I trust the imams know of the work in Iraq, ever since the fall of Saddam, of Canon Andrew White. He has brought together the senior religious leaders of all traditions. Many participants in these meetings had never met each other before. The results were unprecedented: joint Shia-Sunni fatwas, first against suicide bombing and later against violence of any kind directed at minority groups. The high-level meetings were followed up by a series of local ones.
	The congregation of St George’s church, Baghdad, which is technically Anglican and served by my friend, Canon White, contains people from every Christian tradition that ever existed in Iraq. Next to the church is a fully equipped, free medical clinic, serving all comers.
	Despite the almost total exodus of Christians from the city of Mosul, which has been mentioned, I am glad to say that last Sunday there was a joint Christian-Muslim service in St George’s Catholic Chaldean church in or near Mosul. They celebrated their common Iraqi citizenship. Patriarch Sako was quoted as saying:
	“I carry every Iraqi in my heart”.
	The aforementioned exodus was caused by the so-called Islamic State. My other friend, Mr Yonadam Kanna, a long-serving member of the Iraqi Parliament, sadly reported that five Christian families in Mosul had been forced to convert to Islam because they were too old or too ill to flee.
	In the last 100 years, the once-thriving Armenian and Jewish communities have been almost entirely driven out of Iraq. There are now only five or six Jews remaining. As my noble friend Lord Alton mentioned, Iraqi Christians once numbered about 1.5 million in 2003; today, they are reduced to perhaps 250,000. Many have been killed, while others fled to neighbouring states or, if possible, reached Britain, North America
	or Australia. Humanitarian support for all groups is now more needed than ever. That is why I greatly welcome the concern recently expressed by the Pope and the UN Secretary-General.
	In the Middle East outside Iraq, violence in Palestine and Israel has led, I am sorry to say, to fall-out in Europe. I condemn as strongly as possible violence in France and Germany against Jews or anywhere against Muslims. Branding people unjustly as terrorists or scapegoating them because of their religious affiliation is wrong. It recalls the dehumanisation of the other that took place in Nazi Germany or in Rwanda and leads all too easily to genocide. There are no sub-humans. We have to discover and to respect each other’s God-given dignity, remembering that the blood in the veins of all is always red.
	Do Her Majesty’s Government see Article 18 of the universal declaration as an important criterion for the selection of the next UN Secretary-General? If that person will not uphold freedom of conscience and faith, and freedom to change one’s religion, then who will?
	What is the Government’s policy towards the 23 countries with laws on apostasy? Will they take up this matter with the Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference? Will they bear in mind that so-called crimes of apostasy and blasphemy are often punishable by death? Many countries that have abolished or suspended capital punishment should be useful allies on this point. Everyone should know that freedom to choose and respect for diversity are both desirable in themselves and good for society.

The Lord Bishop of Coventry: My Lords, like other Members of your Lordships’ House, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for securing this debate and pay tribute to his great efforts on this vital issue. I thank him for his reference to the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta. I have a personal connection with the charter, as one of my predecessors, William, was among the reverend fathers who advised the King to enshrine its principles of justice and freedom, including freedoms of religion. Magna Carta, despite our own failings—to which reference has been made—to live up to its logic, remains the seed of a tree of which Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is part, and under the cover of which all the peoples of the world should be allowed to stand.
	Freedom of belief, including the freedom to change one’s belief, is like a canary in the mine of human rights. Abuses of religious freedom are often an early indication that all is not well. Indonesia, to which we have already heard reference, has shown worrying signs of this dynamic, with properly licensed churches being closed by an alliance of local government and extremist groups tolerated by the national state, followed in its wake by wider restrictions on freedom of expression. We look for more hopeful signs in this new future.
	Where religious freedom is abused, peace and security often become more elusive. Blasphemy laws in Pakistan give rise to societal hostility to minority groups, legitimising people of violence. And then, when extremism sets in and takes hold, Governments are tempted to restrict
	everyone’s liberty in their attempt to overcome extremists but, in fact, strengthen their hand by weakening the democratic voice of others and restricting the democratic space for all, as we saw in Egypt under President Mubarak, and there is a greater risk under President Sisi.
	Promoting freedom of religion is an important counterterrorism strategy. Matters of religious freedom are woven throughout many of the greatest foreign policy challenges facing our nation so it is self-evident that we must have an effective, religiously informed, philosophically sound strategy to guide how our Government will protect and promote it abroad. I hope therefore that the Minister will be able to give assurances that the recent Cabinet reshuffle will not lead to a weakening in the Government’s own commitments to freedom of religion and belief, including the role of the former Foreign Secretary’s Human Rights Advisory Group and the newly formed working group on religious freedom. I hope that, on the contrary, there will be, following the very fine proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, a strengthening of our systems and capabilities.
	Ensuring Her Majesty’s Government’s commitment to upholding and defending Article 18 remains critical since, by any measurement, as we all know, this freedom is under serious and sustained pressure across so much of the globe, with an estimated 76% of the world’s population enduring a high or very high level of restrictions, among them the estimated 250 million Christians bearing persecution in one form or another and nowhere more so, as we have heard, than in the ISIS-controlled areas of Iraq. The desperate, dignified letter of the Armenian Patriarch of Babylon following recent events in Mosul,
	“to all who have a living conscience in Iraq and all the world”,
	is a tract for our times. We cannot be silent or inactive in the face of such suffering. We must also, according to the same conscience, at the same time, with the same resolve—as the noble Lords, Lord Anderson and Lord Avebury, and others have said—speak out for the Shi’ite Muslims and Sufi minorities in that place, who are facing barbaric cruelty. I was very impressed with the Iraqi al-Khoei Foundation’s statement this week, condemning the destruction of the Christian community in Mosul and beyond.
	In that spirit, my hope is that churches and faith communities here in the UK will find ways to speak out together in a regular and routine manner whenever Article 18 is threatened, giving people a clear space and affirmation, encouraging them to be able to sing their song in different places and in different ways. Speaking together and acting in this way would draw on the deep patterns of peaceful coexistence that religious communities at their best have lived out through the centuries in cities such as Mosul throughout the world. It would be a common witness against the politicisation of religion and the manipulation of it by people of violence with evil intent, and a witness against the internal degradation of religion. It would model new ways of relating that would challenge the way international religious freedom is understood. It would help to counter accusations of colonialism,
	often reinforced in media reporting, that sometimes construe Article 18 along narrowly confessional lines. It would help to build a wider international consensus that creates the necessary space for Governments around the world to defend this most basic freedom of humanity.

Baroness Berridge: My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on International Religious Freedom. In 2012, Pew Research found that there was violence or the threat of violence to compel people to adhere to religious norms in 39% of countries, up from just 18% in 2007. Muslims and Jews experienced six-year highs in the number of countries in which they were harassed by governments, individuals or groups. Christians and Muslims were harassed in the largest number of countries—110 and 109 respectively. This accelerating deterioration is not confined to any particular religion, belief or ideology and all continents are affected.
	In Pakistan, Hindu families are fleeing to refugee camps because Hindu women and girls are being kidnapped and forced to convert to Islam and marry Muslim men. These girls include Lucky Bhel, who was kidnapped in the Sindh region and forced to convert and marry the disciple of a local religious leader. In other areas of the world, it is Muslims who face restrictions, such as Chinese Uighur Muslim students who are being denied the freedom to observe the Ramadan fast. Monitored by teaching staff, they are threatened with not receiving their degree if they refuse to eat. Ironically, in Iran this month, five inhabitants of Kermanshah were flogged and in Tehran the lips of a Christian were burnt with cigarettes for not fasting.
	In Colombia, 200 churches have been forced to close by armed criminal gangs, and the constitutional court has held that indigenous Colombians do not have the same rights relating to religious freedom as the rest of the population. The report Freedom of Thought 2013 by the International Humanist and Ethical Union states that you can be put to death for expressing atheism in 13 countries. Kazakhstan recently imposed two five-day prison sentences on a Muslim and a Baptist. Their offences were, respectively, distributing religious literature that has not passed the state censorship that allows Muslim literature to be only Sunni, and meeting their fellow Christians for worship without state permission.
	The former situation of Meriam Ibrahim in Sudan pinpoints the nub of Article 18. It is the right of every human being to choose their own religion, to choose not to have a religion or to choose to change their religion. You may choose to follow the faith of your family but it is not like DNA: you do not have to inherit the faith of your parents. Meriam was deemed a Muslim because that was her father’s faith, but she chose the Christian faith of her mother.
	The failure to protect the Article 18 rights for 76% of the human population is nothing short of a global crisis. In the time allowed, I have two brief suggestions. First, in our international development policy, freedom of religion and belief must be a priority, as it is in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred to Canon Andrew White, who
	has been in Baghdad of late. In response to a Written Question, I asked whether any of the humanitarian aid had gone to supporting his reconciliation work. Unfortunately, the reply I received was that he had not applied. I ask the Minister: when Canon White returns to the country this weekend, could we perhaps telephone him to see if he needs any assistance?
	Secondly, we must put our own house in order. It is easy to see abuse of Article 18 rights as something that happens in countries where more people hold to more religious views, more passionately. However, are not the issues in Peter Clarke’s report about schools in Birmingham also about respect for Article 18 rights of both Muslim and non-Muslim children? “Dispatches” revealed centres in north London that teach children according to an alleged interpretation of Judaism and curtail contact with the outside world. The same concern exists at the extreme end of allegedly Christian communities.
	Can it really be the case that the Ahmaddiya Muslim community has been told that it cannot join SACRE in Birmingham unless its members refuse to call themselves Muslims? Leaders I have spoken to say that this is reminiscent of how the persecution began in Pakistan. We will not be heard on a world stage if we neglect Article 18 duties here at home. Are we dealing with concerns relating to Islamic extremes while ignoring others? We may not be Sudan, saying, “You have to have the faith of your father”, but are some children not exposed to other messages or beliefs in our plural society? Without such exposure, can these young people be said to have made any choice, particularly one that complies with Article 18?
	RE is a valuable part of the school curriculum, but should not Article 18—your right to choose your faith—also be a key feature of our curriculum? Combined with the anecdotal evidence of difficulties for some people in the UK to convert, is it not time we had an Article 18 assessment here at home or invited the UN special rapporteur to visit us?
	ISIS has used social media for ill, but we have yet to see religious communities use it to promote their messages. Smartphones have the potential to expose young people to messages like never before and create huge shifts in people’s religious affiliations. For that reason, urgent action is needed. Article 18 will be the primary challenge in human rights law for the next generation.

Lord Desai: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Baroness, who has done so much for the cause of religious freedom. I have also been impressed by the many noble Lords who have reported on human rights violations of Article 18 around the world.
	I will concentrate not on what ought to be, but on what is, and why. The UDHR was more or less a dead letter in the years of the Cold War. We each tried to protect out patch and let the communists do what they liked by way of persecution. Their persecution was secular, not religious—they persecuted the religious and atheists alike. It is only since the breakdown of the Cold War in 1991 that the discourse on human rights has become important in the international sphere. I
	remember that because I did some work on it for the United Nations Development Programme some years ago. What has happened since the beginning of the 21st century is that the golden period of about 10 years when we could talk about human rights and enforce human rights has now gone, for two major reasons. First, the rise of Islamism, as a threat to Muslim states in the Middle East and Asia, has weakened the state in those countries. Islamism has also posed a terrorist threat to western countries, whereby the whole question of religious identity has become somewhat debatable.
	In the past three or four years, we have witnessed the breakdown of the international order. We were used to an international order, with the United States, the UK, France, and so on going out to protect certain kinds of freedom around the world. What we have witnessed in Syria and since is that nobody is going to police this world. If nation states are weak with respect to attacks on minorities—if not complicit sometimes in attacks on minorities, as in ISIS, and Brunei and in various other places—and if the international system is not capable of rushing to the aid of people whose human rights are being violated, it is clear that that sort of international system is now dead. Not all that many years ago, people were against a unipolar system and were dying for a multipolar system of international relations. Well, it is here—and it is dreadful, because a multipolar system is an anarchic system, and in an anarchic system whoever has the power of armaments and money will get away with violating people’s human rights. It is not just about Article 18; the sheer safety of civilians is being violated across the Middle East. As many noble Lords have said, Muslims are killing Muslims in larger numbers than ever in the past. It is not just Sunnis killing Shias and Shias killing Sunnis; Sunnis are killing Sunnis as well, in ISIS.
	The international system is helpless, because we have decided that liberal interventionism is no longer possible. That is our decision. Whether it is right or not, we have decided that it is not possible. If you cannot be a liberal interventionist, you cannot enforce human rights. You can have advisories, ambassadors and Ministers going around the world and cajoling states to do this or that, but they are not going to take any notice; why should they? Unless there is some sort of sanction of arms—let us be absolutely frank about this—behind our determination to restore human rights, they will not be honoured.
	The only thing on which I would disagree with my noble friend Lord Parekh is that religions have not always lived in peace with each other—in fact, hardly ever. Eras of religious peace are rare; religious tolerance is a rare thing, which is why we always talk about it. I do not have time to go into examples, but most of the time religions are nasty to each other. World history could be written around that.
	In this limited sphere, what can we effectively do? As in the example of Meriam Ibrahim, yes, if you can harness public opinion in a very large way, perhaps you can make a partial difference. However, our problem arises from the breakdown of the international order, rather than any particular nastiness on the part of any particular religion.

Lord Singh of Wimbledon: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for securing this important debate. We have heard moving accounts of Muslims in Burma and Tamils in Sri Lanka persecuted by militant Buddhists, with Christians persecuted and marginalised in much of the Middle East, Sudan and other parts of Africa. Yesterday’s Times carried a moving article by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on the plight of Christians in Iraq. We are all disturbed by the loss of life in conflict between the Shias, Sunnis and Alawites in Syria and Iraq and the persecution of Ahmadiyyas and Shias in Pakistan. I could go on. We can continue to condemn such killings, but if we are to make real progress, we need to look hard and dispassionately at why people of religion become either victims or perpetrators of religious hatred.
	I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I speak frankly. Religions do not help themselves by claims of exclusivity or superiority. This simply demeans other members of our one human race and suggests that they, the others, are lesser beings. We all know what happens in the school playground when one boy boasts—it is usually boys—that, “My dad is bigger or stronger or cleverer than your dad”. The end result is fisticuffs. My appeal to our different religions and the leaders of religion is to stop playing children’s games. Guru Nanak witnessed the suffering caused by this children’s game of “my religion is better than yours” in conflict between Hindus and Muslims in the sub-continent in the 15th century. In his very first sermon, he declared that the one God of us all is not in the least bit interested in our different religious labels, but in our contribution to a fairer and more peaceful world.
	There is another important area that must be tackled if we are to move away from continuing conflict between religions. Most religious scriptures were written many years after the death of the founder of the religion. Scriptural texts often contain a complex amalgam of history, social and cultural norms of the day that can easily become dated. They can easily mask and distort important underlying ethical imperatives about our responsibilities to one another and to future generations. It is sometimes claimed that often contradictory texts in different religions are the literal word of God. Those who wish to resort to violence in the name of religion can all too easily ignore the context and use quotations in scriptures to justify negative attitudes and violent behaviour towards others.
	I believe that what is required is greater open dialogue that puts transient social and cultural norms embedded in scriptures in their true context. It is not easy. My plea to our Government is for them to give an energetic lead in promoting true interfaith dialogue that puts distorting history and culture in their true perspective to reveal common underlying ethical imperatives in our different faiths. Such a dialogue would provide sane and uplifting guidance for responsible and peaceful living in the complex world of today.

Lord Haskel: My Lords, I have always had a particular interest in Article 18, because it was persecution that brought me to this country as a child. I hope that
	noble Lords will not mind if I speak about Article 18 closer to home, like the noble Lord, Lord Parekh. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for introducing this debate.
	The Jewish community has a strong connection with the Convention on Human Rights. The first draft was prepared by Eleanor Roosevelt. Its second draft and the underlying structure were prepared by René Cassin, a French jurist and the son of a Jewish family. What I did not know—and I am indebted to a briefing from Rabbi Lea Muehlstein—was that in 1945 he founded the Consultative Council of Jewish Organizations, which was dedicated to providing encouragement from a Jewish perspective to a nascent UN human rights system. There is an organisation named in his honour, which continues his work today, promoting and protecting universal rights, drawing on Jewish experience and values. So, from the start, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was embraced by Jewish people.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and others have recounted, some religious groups preach fundamentalism. Some religious teachers think that Article 18 permits religious law to take precedence over civil law. Jews faced this dilemma as far back as the 14th century. Then rabbis decided that the law of the land is the law. They dictated that religious practices must not be in contravention of the law of the state. Article 18 brings this up to date, allowing spiritual and religious self-fulfilment for all faiths. However, there are fundamentalists today in all religions who do not accept this. That is why, to counter this, here and elsewhere in Europe government and local authorities have to make sure that no group is excluded. No one should be left out of housing policy, employment policy, education policy, welfare, skills training and all the other parts of a civilised society.
	There is another way that this Government can help Article 18 to flourish in Europe: they can stop confusing the European Court of Human Rights and the European Union in order to placate Eurosceptics. All members of the European Union are bound by the Charter of Fundamental Rights, but that itself is based on the European Convention on Human Rights, which belongs to the Council of Europe. Withdrawing from the European Union has nothing to do with deporting radical preachers or giving prisoners the vote. Will the Minister tell us whether, to satisfy Eurosceptics, the Prime Minister is considering withdrawing from the European convention, or passing a law limiting its powers in the United Kingdom? Or are we going to have our own Bill of Rights, which I believe is being concocted by a group of Conservative lawyers? For all of us in Europe who value the freedoms we have under Article 18, any of these alternatives would be a disaster. Not only would they undermine our position under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but picking and choosing which bits of human rights law we like and which we do not would inevitably lead to the suggestion that the way to deal with fundamentalism and radical fundamental preachers is to withdraw from Article 18.
	Last week, the Institute for Jewish Policy Research, a secular think tank of which I have the honour to be the honorary president, published its research on the
	perceptions and experiences of anti-Semitism among Jews in this country. The report stressed that in general most Jews in Britain feel comfortable in the UK with their Jewishness and with their Britishness in spite of a perceived rise in anti-Semitism. Although they may not know it, this feeling of comfort is due in large part to the benefits granted by the state, as laid out in Article 18. Let us keep it that way for the benefit of all faiths.

Baroness Lane-Fox of Soho: My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for introducing this debate so inspiringly.
	I have no strongly held religious beliefs but I feel lucky that I can stand up in our Parliament’s second Chamber and proclaim what I do or do not believe. But, more than that, I can link on my blog to my short speech today without any fear of reprisal. I can tweet, I can put it on Facebook and, if I am feeling particularly sociable, on Tumblr as well, all of which I can do without fear of any consequence.
	As with so many areas that your Lordships’ House tackles, technology is changing the landscape. Human rights and freedom of expression are no exception. When Article 18 of the UN declaration was created, there was no way that we could have conceived of the future connectivity of the world. I make a plea that we do not forget the vital importance of these new technology platforms and that we continue to champion their availability. An open internet ensures that people are able to share views, get support and reveal abuses of freedom. I also caution, as we come to understand this brave new world, that there are many risks to navigate.
	I asked my wise Twitter followers for examples of where technology had enabled religious freedoms. One story hit home. A young man, who asked to remain anonymous, found me to tell me that he was a gay Christian in Zimbabwe and felt worthless—that was until he got connected. He then found many digital communities all over the world where he could talk about the complex issues that he faced. I was touched that he wanted to tell his story to me in particular because he had seen on the BBC news website that this Chamber had passed the gay marriage legislation.
	People find solace and relief in the networks of the online world. Take the example of the girls snatched by Boko Haram or the tragedy of Meriam Ibrahim. Such incidents spread around the world with a pace and scale that was unimaginable before. Just this morning I was reading that journalists are being informed from the depths of Gaza by Twitter. It seems that you can hardly be a self-respecting religious leader without active social media management. The Pope has 4.2 million Twitter followers and the Dalai Lama has 9.4 million. I hope that the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury is not dispirited with his 60,000.
	Religion takes many forms online. There is a page on Facebook for the Bible, with more than 4.5 million followers. God Wants You to Know is an app that has 2 million active monthly users. Perhaps my favourite are ads that are now being bought around the web saying “pray for an atheist”, encouraging people to do
	just that. I found examples as diverse as a nun who tweets from her silent order, a global group of Jesuits and a portal for Mormons.
	I believe that we cannot debate Article 18 without also making sure that we are demanding a free and open internet. No Government should be allowed to shut down the platforms that enable people to express themselves. There are currently 44 countries worldwide that are censoring the internet, and this is immensely serious. It is perhaps no surprise that the five worst-performing countries against the criterion of an “open and free” internet, as mapped by the Web Foundation, are Saudi Arabia, Vietnam, China, Yemen and Qatar. In China, during peaceful protests by law-abiding Muslims in the north-west provinces in 2009, the Government shut down Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. In 2009, Tunisian dictator Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali attempted to ban Facebook but, as we know, 18 months later, activist youths employed that tool in the beginnings of their revolution in the so-called Arab spring.
	The global connectivity that we now enjoy can deliver enormous gains in freedom of speech and belief. However, it would be naive of me to suggest that it is not also leading to a far more complex and interlinked world of extremist behaviour. I emphasise that I believe that the vast majority of activity online is benign, but we have only to look at the very effective way that ISIS in Iraq has used technology to push out its twisted messages, as well as raise money, to see the other side of the freedoms of the web.
	However, I urge policymakers to be cautious. Surely it is always better to err on the side of freedom of speech and to tread lightly and carefully. Of course, we must prosecute people who fall foul of international law, but I would hate to see a world where expressing religious views in the digital sphere, which some people find unacceptable, might lead to a knock on your physical door. We in this country are mercifully far away from that scenario but many people are not.

Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for his masterly—if deeply worrying—overview of this problem. Article 18 speaks to the very core of who we are and, indeed, is an essential component of our identities as human beings. We are having this debate against the dreadful news that for the first time in the Christian era there are now no Christians at all in Mosul. This is perhaps mitigated in some small part by the welcome news of the safe arrival in Rome this morning of Meriam Ibrahim, who was sentenced to death in Sudan.
	An illustration of how the religious freedom problem in India criss-crosses all faiths is the persecution in India of the Dalit community, formerly known as “the untouchables”. They are persecuted not only if they convert to Islam but also if they convert to Christianity. As many noble Lords have said, freedom of religion or belief ensures that we are not compelled to believe anything that we do not want to, taking agnostic or atheistic positions if we choose. It is important that Article 18 does not stand alone. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is clear on this. Freedom of opinion or expression, freedom of association or
	assembly, and freedom of religion or belief are three strands that together make up that greater freedom, vested in human dignity, to which all people of good will aspire.
	Around the world, sadly we see conflict situations where respect for freedom or belief has to be the crucial element in any sustainable peace. Reference has already been made to the current crisis in Iraq, the conflict in Rakhine State in Burma, and post-conflict situations such as Sri Lanka, to name only a few. There are currently two glaring cases of abuse of or contempt for Article 18 in North Korea and Eritrea, to which the noble Lord referred. I hope that the Minister can assure the House that Her Majesty's Government are doing their utmost to secure implementation of the recommendations of the UN commission on North Korea and will support the UN commission of inquiry on Eritrea announced earlier this year. It is only by ensuring that Article 18 remains firmly on the agenda, and by seeking to tackle violations of it in a systematic fashion, that we can hope to have some impact on the many desperate situations faced by so many in the world today.
	What steps can we take? Religious tolerance for those of us living in the United Kingdom very much begins at home. I was interested in the references by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry and my noble friend Lord Patten to Magna Carta, which plays such a great part in American culture as well as our own. This country has a proud record of tolerance. It sets an example possibly more appreciated by our neighbours than we sometimes realise. I note the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, lest we get too smug; the noble Lord, Lord Singh, made reference to this; and I was deeply moved by what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, as to his origins. The tradition of your Lordships’ House, part of the bricks and mortar of this place, is that a speaker is willed by the House, whatever his or her political views, to give of his or her best. My predecessor in this debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, has given an interesting sideline on the internet implications of this.
	This tolerance by example needs to be carried out into the wider world of Article 18, to be raised wherever possible as a high priority at bilateral and multilateral levels. I am pleased to see that the FCO’s latest democracy and human rights report states that,
	“every minister … is an ambassador for religious freedom”.
	That action is being taken to educate those within the department and across government on how better to tackle these issues—again, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred to this. It is also important that the European Union speaks, for once, with one voice in implementing its guidelines on freedom of religion and belief, and I would welcome an update on progress from my noble friend the Minister.
	In conclusion, I refer to the work of the office of the UN special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, who is not in his place. I understand that, despite a reported shortage of funding for his department, he has nevertheless championed, in addition to his own
	brief, some sensitive but important issues, including women’s rights. Here, again, I would welcome an update from my noble friend the Minister.

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I find this a very troubling debate. The situation is getting worse and we do not know what to do about it. I begin by quoting the special rapporteur’s report last year, which states:
	“In practice, manifestations of collective religious hatred frequently overlap with national, racial, ethnic or other forms of hatred, and in many situations it may seem impossible to clearly separate these phenomena. As a result, the label ‘religion’ can sometimes be imprecise and problematic when used to describe complex phenomena and motives of collective hatred. Nevertheless it remains obvious that religions and beliefs can serve as powerful demarcators of ‘us-versus-them’ groupings. Unfortunately, there are many examples testifying to this destructive potential of religion. At the same time, one should always bear in mind that anti-hatred movements exist within all religions and that most adherents of the different religious and belief traditions are committed to practising their faith as a source of peace, charity and compassion, rather than of hostility and hatred”.
	What can we say? Where is the new intellectual paradigm, if I may call it that, to reconcile this vast contradiction between what is professed as the peaceful role of religion and the growth of this demagoguery and hatred? I believe that socioeconomic inequality and population growth have something to do with it; and I wish that the Roman Catholic Church would move in the direction in which the Pope seems to be going on the question of birth control. That is because many of the problems are in socioeconomic groups C, D and E on a world scale—in other words, in poor and poorer countries.
	We will be accused of imperialism if we try to, as it were, lay down the law. That is extremely frustrating, possibly exasperating. So we have to ask why the United Nations cannot take stronger steps. I ask the Minister: what initiatives can the Foreign Office, in conjunction with Europe or otherwise, take? I speak as a middle-of-the-road member of the Church of England—perhaps we all ought to put our cards on the table. How can we, in our tradition, get better adherence mechanisms? There was something called the Rabat Plan of Action, but what sort of brainstorming can the Foreign Office put into achieving stronger adherence mechanisms in relation to the reports and findings of the special rapporteur? When push comes to shove, the question is: how can the big nations of the world simply ignore these things? It is a tricky political problem but we have to be a bit franker about it. One of the excellent briefing notes from the Library states that Article 18 is now an orphan. I am afraid that that rings a bell, does it not?
	We all want to be tolerant but we do not want to be tolerant of other people’s intolerance. We know this in our religious traditions. There has always been—as many of us were brought up to believe—a belief that our religion had the exclusive knowledge of the truth, and that other religious beliefs were next door to apostasy. We have to become more secular at the same time as recognising that religion has more to contribute in the world. My noble friend Lord Desai was getting near to a good point. The post-Marxist analysis suggests
	that we no longer have the struggle of capital and labour, nor do we have the struggle of the colonised versus the coloniser. Does, as the rapporteur says, the identifier become something against the other? It is impossible in this debate to say anything useful in five minutes but I hope that the Foreign Office will think about what stronger adherence mechanisms could be promulgated for a world discussion? I hope that we can get India, China and other great nations on board to do something like that because I cannot see any other way forward.

Lord Morrow: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on securing this important debate.
	I begin by affirming the great importance of the provision of an article in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights that explicitly and specifically protects religious freedom. Back in the 1960s, it was common to hear academics suggest that religion was generally on the wane and that we were moving towards a more secularised world. While church attendance may be less than what it was in the United Kingdom, globally the world is becoming if anything more, not less, religious. In this regard we have seen an explosion of academic interest in religion and desecularisation. In this context, Article 18 is more important than ever, and I pay special tribute to the Lebanese philosopher, Professor Charles Malik, Lebanon’s first ambassador to the United Nations, who drafted and championed Article 18.
	I now turn to the application of Article 18 domestically. I would like to focus particularly on the second limb, namely,
	“freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance”.
	In Christian theology, belief without action is meaningless. We are told in the letter of James—I make no apology for quoting from the Bible because discussions of religious freedom are meaningless if not rooted in an appreciation of real and relevant theology—that,
	“faith without works is dead”.
	The Christian understanding of worship as living out one’s faith 24/7 and of rejecting the idea that one is just a Christian on Sunday is absolutely central to what it means to be a Christian. This was set out so very clearly by William Wilberforce in the 1797 book that he called his manifesto, in which he explained how real Christianity means transforming belief into action across the whole of life, including politics.
	In this context, I have to say that I very much agree with the American first lady, Michelle Obama, when she said:
	“Our faith journey isn’t just about showing up on Sunday for a good sermon … It’s about what we do Monday through Saturday as well … especially in those quiet moments, when the spotlight’s not on us, and we’re making those daily choices about how to live our lives”.
	In short, “doing God”, to coin a phrase, involves doing.
	Secularists will generously tell us of their fierce commitment to religious freedom and then, in a move that makes them sound particularly supportive, say they believe that freedom of religious belief is an absolute right. In return for offering an absolute right to belief, however, they go on to argue that if ever there is a conflict between the right to manifest religious belief and any other right, the manifestation of religious belief should be curtailed. The truth is that the notion that providing an absolute right to religious belief in this country constitutes something meaningful and substantive is problematic on two bases. First, it means something only if you believe that the British state can get inside your head and prevent you believing what you believe, which does not seem likely. Secondly, it suggests that the centre of religious faith is belief and that one can constrain practice at will without placing religious liberty in jeopardy.
	In order to see just how ridiculous this is, we must return to the active principle and that clear statement from the New Testament that,
	“faith without works is dead”.
	The Bible does not say that faith without works is truncated or diminished. It says that it is actually negated. There can be no faith without works. Mindful of this, it is absolutely right that Article 18 is very clear that the manifestation of religious belief is very broad based.
	As I look around Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, I see many wonderful examples of people of faith properly exercising their religious freedom in both belief and practice. Leading politicians have not been slow to affirm this with respect to welfare service provision, as indeed they should if they take their Article 18 obligations seriously. The willingness of politicians to affirm the right to manifest belief, however, is, I am afraid, rather selective. I say this with regret, not because I want to suggest that, if people claim that an action is in some way related to their faith, they should be allowed to proceed regardless—that would clearly be dangerous. Rather, I am suggesting that, if we are to respect the place of religion in our society, and the place of Article 18, we must make space for mainstream religious practice: both that which the secular commentariat agrees with and that which makes them uncomfortable. Sadly, this is not happening.
	I would like to have said much more, but time has caught up with me. I would like to have said something in relation to Nigeria, but I totally agree with, and want to associate myself with, the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, on this matter.

Lord Elton: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, I would like much more time, but would have liked it to prepare what I have to say. I do not think I have ever embarked on a debate and learnt so much about what is going on in the world that I did not know. I knew the generality, but we now have the particularity, which is very stark. It is interesting that we make this assault on this difficult problem seven days after what was probably the best and longest debate this House has held, on the Assisted Dying
	Bill, where we looked at death on the individual scale. It seems that we are now turning the microscope round and using it as a telescope to look at death on the ethnic and global scale. The two chime together. It is a grim thought that this current of dark, heartless evil runs through the whole human race and through every faith at some stage in its development.
	I approach this with perhaps an unusual level of humility as I listen to the expertise and the visible bravery and courage of others in the debate. First, I would like to leave in your Lordships’ minds—this may puzzle your Lordships until I get to the end—the thought that, when the Syrian disaster first began to grab our attention, it was clear, although not apparently recognised in the echelons of power, that all the minorities who were threatened actually trusted Assad and, rightly, feared the rebels.
	We have had a number of approaches this morning and this afternoon. My noble friend Lord Anderson, who is not in his place at the moment, started by saying that peace depends on building bridges between faiths. He was echoed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry, who pointed out that it would be extremely helpful if, at the local and particularly the national level, all sorts of faiths represented in a troubled area could get together to show what was happening and to condemn it. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, pointed to where this is happening at the bottom of the pile, although involving people at the top. It is being done by the astonishing—and in future, I hope, saintly—Canon Andrew White, who is living out a very frail life, in extreme danger, bringing polar opposites in Iraq together. That is one element that we need to pursue.
	Next, I echo my noble friend Lady Berridge, who pointed out the importance of religious education. It may amuse her to know that in the flotsam and jetsam that will eventually wash up on some distant Whitehall desk is a tiny paragraph or two of mine from the Queen’s Speech debate—not yet answered—on the similar point that religious education is needed to underpin the civics and the civil behaviour of our population. The noble Lord, Lord Parekh, was looking for some means of controlling micro-oppression, as I might call it. What does that is understanding, and education is where you begin to build it.
	As has been described by many noble Lords, we are watching a forest fire. My noble friend Lord Patten said it was spreading to Indonesia, but we need to look the other way, too, as it is spreading here. Fires burn in different ways: a heath fire can burn underground for weeks and burst out long after the fire brigade has gone home and gone on holiday. It can also burn fiercely, brightly and scorchingly. That is what is happening.
	The noble Lord, Lord Desai, used an interesting phrase. He said that Article 18 cannot be enforced and that, if we are honest, we need arms, I think he said. However, we cannot go down that road for reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Singh, pointed out and which our Lord pointed out to Peter somewhere near Caesarea Philippi, because, in the end, it brings evil in its train. However, we can at least deny to the forces of
	evil some of their materiel, or the weapons of war, which are now reaching a serious scale, for instance in Nigeria.
	My noble friend Lady Cox pointed the finger at, among others, Saudi Arabia. That happens in other areas, too. Saudi Arabia was among the first to support the rebels in Syria. Has the time come not only for me to sit down—as my noble friend is pointing out—but for my noble friend and his colleagues to look carefully at whether the whole arrangement of our alliances in the Middle East and north Africa should be considered and, probably, drastically revised?

Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and make the comment that when he and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, bring these issues to the House, all of us learn something. I am sure we are all grateful for the work that they do, not only here at home but where these problems exist.
	I will speak about the abuse of human rights in Iran. Every so often, we get a chance in the House to ask Questions. I have repeatedly asked about the plight of the people in Camp Ashraf and Camp Liberty; perhaps the Minister can give us an update of what is going on in those areas. Can the Minister also say, in his reply, how many times the United Nations, through the Security Council or other forums, has condemned the brutality and inhumanity of the mullahs in Iran? I will also speak today about the persecution of Christians.
	This week in Iran, on Monday, the mullahs’ regime publicly flogged five people, with 70 lashes each, in Nobahar Junction, Azadi Square, Ferdowsi Square and Motahari Junction. In yet another brutal measure, on 14 July, the criminal agents of the mullahs put out the cigarette of a Christian on his lips—stubbed out a cigarette—and beat him savagely. From 11 to 13 July, five more were flogged in the cities of Babolsar and Shiraz. Three of them allegedly received lashes for not observing the fast during Ramadan and two were accused of stealing. These acts are perpetrated in the name of religious leaders—fundamentalists and those who rule by fear.
	How different it is now from the outpourings of support for President Rouhani when he won the sham election last year. Since he won that election, 800 people have been executed. The litany goes on and on. In the debate this afternoon, I will talk about two young Iranian women, Maryam Rostampour and Marziyeh Amirizadeh. They were born into Muslim families in Iran and describe a period of questioning and exploring other religions which led to their conversions to Christianity in 1999. They met one another in 2005 in Turkey while studying theology and felt called to return to Iran to share the gospel with fellow Iranians.
	Upon their return, the two women began a ministry together which involved Bible distribution and holding secret house church meetings for prostitutes and young people. This work eventually drew the attention of the Iranian authorities and they were arrested in 2009. Their initial detention lasted for 14 days during which they were interrogated, threatened with physical torture and put under pressure to give details of their contacts.
	The charges levelled against them included apostasy, for which they were placed in Evin Prison and faced the very real threat of death by hanging. Maryam and Marziyeh spent the following nine months in the terrible, infamous Evin Prison, subject to regular interrogation and under pressure to recant, which they consistently refused to do. Considered infidels, they were denied medical treatment and access to other facilities. Despite the harsh conditions they faced, the women were able to give witness to fellow prisoners and the guards, and show them their belief in God.
	The noble Lord, Lord Alton, and other noble Lords have referred to the situation in Mosul. I am confident that all noble Lords will be pleased to hear what Maryam Rajani, the leader of the Iranian Council of Resistance, said this week. Speaking two days ago about the stance taken by the Association of Muslim Scholars, which condemned aggression against Christians, she said, “It was a reasonable stance that challenges fundamentalism and religious extremism”. She added, “Aggression against Christians is unIslamic”, and I hope that message gets through. After 259 days without bail, Maryam and Marziyeh will welcome somebody speaking out for Christians in Iran. Six months after their release, those two ladies went to live in the United States. They have dedicated themselves to sharing their experience in a book, Captive in Iran, which I recommend.
	Finally, I implore the Minister to ask our recently appointed Foreign Secretary to re-examine the Government’s relationship with the Iranian mullahs. Instead of talking about reducing the pretty ineffective sanctions, we should be seeking firmer sanctions to help those who are suffering.

Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: Tolerance, respect for the other, care for the stranger without the gate: these are the core British values that are enshrined and honoured by our common rule of law. The careful wording of Article 18 meticulously reflects these values and encapsulates our worldwide common right to worship as we wish. If, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, so powerfully proclaims, this right is under extraordinary attack, so too are our British values, entwined as they are with the article. We have an enemy here in the UK, and it is the same enemy that has erupted in parts of Syria, in Mosul and other cities in northern Iraq and elsewhere.
	What is our enemy? We—Jews, Christians and Muslims—are all people of the book. Our capacity to co-operate, share, live, study and work together derives from that. Our common enemy, the Salafi, do not agree. For the Salafi, we are the enemy and must convert or die. The Salafi identify themselves as Muslims, but there are many different strands of Islam. Some may be hostile to other strands or other faiths, but Salafist thinking mutates disastrously to destruction, dominance and executions. It is important to distinguish between these common strands of Islam. Words that are thrown around so loosely now, such as “Islamist”, “fundamentalist Muslim” and so on, are not the Salafists. It is the Salafists and their cousins the Wahhabis who are our common enemy and the enemy of other faiths as well.
	Let me give an example. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, spoke strongly about the situation in north Iraq. I speak about Mosul, which I know well. What is it like today with ISIS—that armed group of Salafists—having taken over the city and the region? Civil society has gone. All social life has disappeared from the streets. No family parks are allowed to function. No play areas for children can be opened. The coffee shops have shut. There is no judiciary. The ruler is the executioner. All minorities are subject to displacement, assault and execution. So, too, are the majorities. The holy shrines of prophets are being destroyed. All the mosques of other Sunni strands of Islam—that is to say, the non-jihadi Salafist group—have been taken over. The clerks have either been assassinated or persecuted. The synagogues have been taken over as well. The Shia are under the threat of killing wherever they are. They are the majority in the country. They are being executed. The Yezidi have been displaced from their homes and places of work. The Shabak groups are obliged to leave their areas. Christians have been turned out forcibly. They have had a special favour; they have been warned and told to leave.
	The Shia are automatically executed when their names betray their strand of Islam. Anyone who is not Sunni jihadi—Salafi—must hide or run away. Women are not allowed to leave their homes without a niqab covering the whole of their face and should be accompanied by a man. That is not Islam. Show me the verse in the holy Koran that says that must be the case. You cannot find it. Public services are fractionally running, but there is separation of the sexes. The management team of your local health centre, if it still exists, is from ISIS. The directors-general of health and education are now prisoners in their own homes. They are Sunni. The health facilities are being run by few staff, with the majority remaining inside their homes in order to stay alive. Those who are working are uncertain about any salaries. Even worse, who is going to provide them with the drugs and fresh equipment when their stocks run out, which is happening? There will be epidemics, including cholera, which was in the area very recently. The new rule applied to schools and hospitals allocates a day for men and another for women, so that the two genders are not in the facility at the same time.
	Is there not familiarity with the situation that was uncovered this week by Her Majesty’s inspectorate in its report on schools in Birmingham? Examples of this include altering the curriculum and schemes of work so that children are not allowed to hear musical instruments or to sing and changing the art curriculum so that they may see and draw only designs but not full faces or images. I recall having that argument with Hezbollah in south Lebanon. Indeed, in 2007 the Muslim Council stated that girls in schools should be covered except for their hands and faces. I cannot find the verse that tells me that that should be so. There is no Christmas, despite the fact that the birth of Christ is in the Koran and Jesus is a prophet in Islam.
	What is the Islam that I know and love? It talks of music:
	“’Tis said, the pipe and lute that charm our earsDerive their melody from rolling spheres;
	But Faith, o’erpassing speculation’s bound, Can see what sweetens every jangled sound.We, who are parts of Adam, heard with himThe song of angels and of seraphim.…Music uplifts the soul to realms above.The ashes glow, the latent fires increase:We listen and are fed with joy and peace”.
	What are Her Majesty’s Government doing to ensure that true Islam, like true Christianity, Sikhism, Buddhism, Hinduism and Judaism, is firmly embedded in the school curriculum, taught, implemented and demonstrated? Her Majesty’s Government must give an answer.

Lord Sacks: My Lords, I, too, am deeply grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for allowing us this opportunity to share our concerns about one of the most profoundly disturbing developments in our time. Seldom have I heard a more searing and devastating set of testimonies than I have heard today of the evils currently being committed in the name of the God of love and peace and compassion.
	Twenty-five years ago, in 1989, Soviet communism collapsed, the Berlin Wall came down, the Cold War came to an end. Many believed that we were about to witness throughout the world the spread of market economics, liberal democracy and the kind of tolerances we associate with both. Today, we know it did not happen that way. We have seen instead a new tribalism, leading to massacres in Rwanda, Bosnia and Darfur, the division and balkanisation of societies along religious lines, and the return of the one thing that could take humanity back to the dark ages, namely the use of religion as the robe of sanctity to disguise and legitimate the naked pursuit of power.
	The persecution of Christians throughout much of the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa, Asia and elsewhere is one of the crimes against humanity of our time, and I am appalled at the lack of protest it has evoked. We have heard about this from many eloquent speakers today. What is happening to Christians in these places is the religious equivalent of ethnic cleansing. We must not forget either, as others have said, that the vast majority of victims of Islamist violence and terror are Muslim, and our hearts go out to them too, as they do to members of all other persecuted groups such as the Baha’i in Iran, and so many others.
	I wish I did not have to speak about the position of Jewish communities throughout the world but, sadly, I do. In the past few weeks mobs have assaulted Jews in France, attacking synagogues and setting fire to Jewish-owned shops. There were attacks in Berlin. In November 2013, the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights published a report showing that two-thirds of the Jews in Europe regard anti-Semitism as a significant factor in their lives, three-quarters believe that it has worsened significantly in the past five years, one-third have personally experienced some form of harassment, and they are deeply afraid for the future. Forgive me if I say that I did not expect, 120 years after the Dreyfus case and 70 years after the Holocaust, that the cry of
	“Death to the Jews” would be heard again in the streets of France and Germany.
	In all this we recognise the power of the internet and social media to turn any local conflict into a global one. We see how the wilful confusion of religion and politics allows soluble political problems to be turned into insoluble religious ones. We witness the ignorance that allows people to mistake one strand within a faith for the whole of that faith, and we pay a high price for our fascination with extremists. It is the worst, not the best, who know how to capture the attention of a troubled and confused world.
	That people in the 21st century are being murdered, terrorised, victimised, intimidated and robbed of their liberties because of the way they worship God is a moral outrage, a political scandal and a desecration of faith itself. I believe that God himself weeps at the evils being committed in His name. Let us urge, as strongly as we can, the worldwide implementation of Article 18 as one of the great challenges of our time so that we can all exercise our fundamental right to live our faith without fear.

Lord Bach: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the expert speakers in this debate and a particular privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Sacks, with his tremendous reputation. His speech today was full of wisdom and wise words, and it was excellent that he was here to take part.
	This has been a major debate on a major issue of our times, instigated, if I may say so, by a major player in your Lordships’ House. Only two weeks ago we were debating the World Service and the British Council. Yesterday, as the House has heard, we were debating the United Nations commission of inquiry into North Korea, and today we debate an issue of fundamental importance to the type of world we want. What these debates have in common, of course, is that they were all secured by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. They also have in common an emphasis on human rights and decent values in a very imperfect world. The House and the wider public owe the noble Lord a great deal.
	The central issue of today’s debate is, surely, the continued and increasing breaches of Article 18 in a large number of countries where Governments have a theoretical commitment to freedom of religion or belief. Governments have turned a blind eye or, in some cases, encouraged outrages against those who have dared to remain true to their faith or, even, to their lack of faith.
	Recently, his Holiness Pope Francis said that there were more martyrs today than in the first centuries of Christianity, which, we were all taught at school, were scarred by blood and brutality. Almost every week, we hear of new outrages committed against people of faith. In our minds today are the Christians who have had to flee Mosul as they faced wicked threats and treatment from ISIS. Indeed, shocking news is coming through as we speak. The BBC is reporting that Islamist group ISIS has ordered women aged between 11 to 46 years in Mosul to undergo female genital mutilation. If that is true it has the capacity to shock even us, given all that we have heard today. There are, and have
	been for days, reports that last weekend ISIS was putting on Christian doors in Mosul in Arabic, the letter “N”, meaning Nazarene, to point out where Christians lived. It does not need me to say the parallels that there are with the last 100 years in Nazi Germany.
	This is all in a part of the world where Christianity began and where, even under despotic rule, whether it be the Ottoman Empire or more recent dictators, Christians have been allowed to practise their religion without hindrance. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, wrote graphically in yesterday’s Timesreminding us that the number of Christians in Mosul has gone from 30,000 to zero. Of course, there are many other examples of this, not just in the troubled Middle East, but around the world. It was estimated that one-third of countries in the world had a high or very high level of government restrictions on freedom of religion and that 76% of the world’s population, calculated as 5.3 billion people, live in such countries.
	The questions for us must include why, in a more globalised world, where people are able to mix, meet and travel more freely than ever before in human history, there is now more, not less, intolerance. What can we do about it? The All-Party Parliamentary Group on International Religious Freedom, chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge—it is a privilege to hear her today—in its paper on Article 18, talked with great force and made the point that although Article 18 remains the single most significant statement of the international community’s commitment to freedom of religion or belief, it is hamstrung in practice because it has never been the subject of a focused United Nations convention, unlike the rights of women, children, persons with disabilities, and others.
	Professor Malcolm Evans, who I believe assisted the Committee, argues that there has been evidence of intention of creating such a convention, but it has not been achieved and, to use his words, is still “on hold” after 45 years. That is why the document that the committee of the noble Baroness produced is called Article 18: An Orphaned Right. The Government are rightly praised for describing freedom of religion or belief as,
	“one of the Government’s key human rights priorities”.
	It is good to hear that every Minister will be an ambassador for religious freedom when he or she goes abroad, and that the Government have a strategy for promoting this particular freedom. Indeed, one can see the influence of the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, in these developments. Although it is always an enormous pleasure to debate with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and I am delighted to see him in his place, it is in one way a shame that the noble Baroness is not here today because this is really her territory. It seems to the Opposition that she has made a real mark on this subject in her years in office. The recommendations in the all-party report are very important. It would be good to hear from the Minister when he sums up what responses to them he can give on behalf of the Government.
	Many countries are formally in breach of Article 18. Some have been referred to in today’s debate. Of course, what is happening in Syria and Iran, where Sunni is set against Shia and vice versa, shows us that
	interfaith behaviour is entirely relevant to Article 18. Historically, Christianity has hardly set a good example over the centuries—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Patten. But that is no reason now for not arguing strongly that there is an urgent need for Article 18 to be complied with around the world.
	It is interesting to note that Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which calls in the same way for freedom of faith and belief, seems on balance to have been much better observed over the years than Article 18, which we are debating today. Surely that is partly because there is an effective legal remedy if Article 9 of the ECHR is breached. Article 9 does not stand alone; it is embedded in practical law. That must surely be a lesson for us to learn.
	The noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred to the speech made by my right honourable friend Douglas Alexander on this subject following an article he wrote in the Daily Telegraph last Christmas. I will quote from it but time is very short. He just said:
	“It is simply wrong for any faith to be persecuted”,
	and that to say so,
	“is not to support one faith over another—it is to say that persecution and oppression of our fellow human beings in the name of any god or ideology is never acceptable and is morally repugnant”.
	Surely he is right and action is necessary. We look forward to hearing what the Government propose. Of course, the House looks forward to hearing from the Minister.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I am afraid that in the very short time I have, because we are running a little in this debate, it will be impossible to respond to everybody on every point that has been made. I apologise for that.
	I was also going to apologise that, in this instance, I am summing up on something that is so very much the subject of my noble friend Lady Warsi. In preparing for this debate, I read the speeches she made in Georgetown, at the Pontifical Academy in Rome, in Oman and Kuala Lumpur. After that, my high respect for her rose further. It is partly because of who she is and where she comes from that she is able to speak with such conviction to diverse audiences and have them accept what she says. In particular, she talks about her background as the child of a mixed Sunni/Shia family and her comfortableness about being a British Muslim. In understanding religion, she quoted in one speech an imam who taught her that your religion flows across the bed of the society in which you live. That is a lovely concept. Therefore, to be a British Muslim is of course a little different from being an Omani or Saudi Muslim, and the same applies also for many other faiths. I pay very considerable tribute to the work my noble friend has done and is doing.
	She certainly contributed to upgrading the Foreign Office’s emphasis and understanding of the importance of religion. The Human Rights and Democracy Report for this year has a very useful section on freedom of religion and belief which says,
	“Baroness Warsi has made freedom of religion or belief an FCO priority, and now every minister at the FCO is an ambassador for
	religious freedom, raising and promoting these issues in the countries with which they engage”.
	It goes on to talk about training and seminars within the FCO and briefings for representatives elsewhere. My noble friend Lord Cormack asked for a specific FCO envoy on religion. The problem that other states have found with appointing a specific envoy on religion is that a large number of countries then refuse to accept visits from him or her. However, everyone having this as part of what they do and say helps in the many difficult countries with which we must have this dialogue.
	Of course, my noble friend Lady Warsi also worked with the Organization of the Islamic Conference, and one must have dialogue with a range of organisations around the world. As the noble Lord, Lord Sacks, will know, the UK currently holds the chairmanship of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. Sir Andrew Burns has done some excellent work in that respect. He, my noble friend Lady Warsi and others have also encouraged various different faith communities to think about genocide and holocaust as something which moves across different faiths and has been a tragedy for many of them. In recent months, the commemoration of the tragedy of Srebrenica is very much part of all that.
	I assure the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry that the reshuffle will in no sense affect this emphasis. This Government, as my noble friend Lady Warsi said, “does God” because we recognise that religion, power, faith and ideology all flow in and out of each other. Religion can be misused as a force for evil as well as good.
	As most noble Lords will know, my noble friend Lady Warsi convened a group within the Foreign Office on freedom of religion and belief, which includes people from a range of different faiths—and from none, because we emphasise that Article 18 includes the right to believe, to change your religion or not to believe. It is a statement of religious toleration and of toleration of thought altogether. The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, suggested that the United Kingdom was on its way to withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights and then, perhaps in time, from the UN declaration on human rights, or at least from Article 18. All I can say is: not this coalition Government, whatever a future Government might do.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred to our work with the Arab League and others on freedom of religion. We work with as many international organisations as we can on all these issues.
	We heard in this debate a huge range of concerns about attacks on many different religions in many different countries. The most immediate concerns we all have are about the attacks on Christian communities across the Middle East, the region from which the three great monotheistic religions grew and within which different faiths have managed to co-exist, with occasional disasters, without too much hatred over so many centuries. We also heard about south Asia, from which a number of other global faiths emerged, where to our horror we see Buddhists attacking Muslims and Hindus. There is also the Muslim-on-Muslim violence
	that we see across the Middle East. We know that religion is used in a whole host of ways across a great many countries.
	Religion has linked historically with power and has also—sorry; I have lost one of my pages. Religion was abused as part of the way in which states established themselves, such as forced conversions and killings of religious minorities. When I read of the way that ISIS is behaving in Mosul, I recalled that in 1870, when the tsarist Russians conquered the north Caucasus, they offered the Circassians and the Chechens the choice of conversion or expulsion. That is the origin of the Chechen and Circassian communities in Aleppo, Amman and elsewhere. It is one of the reasons why the king of Jordan has just visited Grozny to talk to the local Chechens about some of those links.
	We all have to recognise that tolerance takes a long time to develop. Religion and modernity have had a difficult relationship. Indeed, the origins of religious fundamentalism were in the 19th century United States, as rural communities came to terms with the tremendous problems of transition to urban and modern life. We have seen that turbulence now running across the Middle East and elsewhere, where the speed of change from traditional society to modernity is so much greater and where, therefore, the fundamentalist reaction is often so much stronger.
	We are conscious that the resistance to a liberal and open society has been there in a great many religions. I recall the papal bull that denounced liberalism and all its works in the 1870s. To some extent, the disillusion with Arab nationalism and the collapse of the secular faith of Marxist communism have left a hard-line version of political Islam as an all-enveloping ideology for the discontented, dispossessed and frustrated young men of so many countries, including some of our communities in this country.
	A number of noble Lords have talked about the United Kingdom as an example. Among others, the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, talked about the importance of remembering that religious toleration begins at home. I am not entirely sure that we should quote Magna Carta in our defence. I know that Article 1 of Magna Carta says that the English church is to be free, but that is the defence of the organised religion, not of the individual. It is also the defence of the church and all its privileges from the king. That is not my understanding of Article 18, so we need to careful about quoting Magna Carta.

The Lord Bishop of Coventry: I interpreted it as the seed from which has grown the tree and a proper universal application of that principle of seeking for religion not to be controlled by the state.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, it was a very small seed and, sadly, the tree—looking back at British history—grew rather slowly. We had a civil war and quite a lot of killing of Protestants by Catholics and Catholics by Protestants and others on the way to the achievement of the religious toleration that we have.
	I grew up as a Protestant and I was instinctively anti-Catholic. I did not have the category of Jewish in my mind so I had no concept of whether I should be
	anti-Jewish, pro-Jewish or what. I slowly learnt not to be anti-Catholic and so one has moved. Over the past two to three generations in this country, the levels of intolerance have, happily, gone down a great deal. When I occasionally go to services in Westminster Abbey where I was a choirboy, and where you would never have seen a Catholic priest in the 1950s, I see not only representatives of the other Christian churches, but a range of other faiths represented: the Chief Rabbi, representatives of Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Zoroastrian, Baha’i and other communities. That is the way we should be going; interfaith dialogue and understanding in our schools and among different organised churches are what we should be doing to promote and defend an open society.
	In particular, I regret that as regards what I think I learnt as a child about the three religions of the book—the Abrahamic faiths—we have lost some of that sense that the three great monotheistic religions belong together.

Lord Reid of Cardowan: In the profound spirit of liberalism and ecumenicism that has pervaded his speech, could the Minister have a look at the rules concerning Catholic marriages in the Crypt?

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: I was going to make another point, which is that we are all deeply aware at the present moment of the current conflicts in the Middle East, including between Israel and Palestine and the extent to which that spills over to some of the misunderstandings of our discontented young. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Sacks, that I went to address the Board of Deputies before the last election on behalf of my party and said, among other things, that we all have to understand that Jerusalem is a holy city for three faiths. I was heckled by someone who said, “No it isn’t. It’s the eternal city of the Jews”. We all recognise that there are some great sensitivities here, with different understandings of the past, and that what some call Judea and Samaria others call the West Bank and others call the Holy Land. They are matters that we cannot get away from and have to address.
	There are many who do a lot of good work in that respect in the United Kingdom. I recall Tariq Ramadan, now on the panel of the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, saying that he sees Europe as the society within which the necessary reconciliation between Islam and modernity will take place. Let us all work for that.
	A large number of countries have been mentioned in the debate and it is impossible in these last few minutes—

Lord Clarke of Hampstead: I wonder if I can help the Minister. Ten years ago, as a practising Roman Catholic, my wife and I renewed our marriage vows in St Mary Undercroft. We have not been able to do it this year for our diamond wedding anniversary, but that might alleviate some of the fears that some Peers have.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: I thank the noble Lord for that contribution.
	The situation in Iran and across the Middle East, the question of south Asia, what is happening in Burma, Indonesia and the new laws set out in Brunei—a great many countries have been mentioned. Sadly, however, we have not mentioned the Central African Republic, where Christians, or people who call themselves and identify themselves as Christians, are killing Muslims, and people who call themselves Muslims are killing Christians. I regret to say that they are probably using the religious symbol as an excuse for competing with the others. We have to recognise that not just modernity, but rising population and shortage of resources fuel some of those conflicts that appear to be religious.

Lord Lea of Crondall: The Minister will be aware that I was not the only one who asked a specific question about what steps the Foreign Office is considering, and whether there is any brainstorming there, as to how to strengthen the adherence to the famous article.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I have two minutes left, which is why I am attempting to run through this. I promise I will write to the noble Lord, in so far as I can. I have already explained that the Foreign Office is actively engaged in all of this in terms of internal education and our constant dialogue with others. We have, again, come back on to the Human Rights Council so we are working across the board on this issue.
	The debate has demonstrated our concern with the large number of countries in which religious toleration is absent and where there is discrimination against minorities within each religion and against different religions from that which is the official religion of that country. I can assure your Lordships that the Government are actively concerned with this. We see it as something that the British Government must actively work on, at home and throughout the world, as one of the important ways in which we help to maintain our open and tolerant society and to strengthen those principles of liberal, open societies across the world.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, although I had the privilege of entering your Lordships’ House in 1997 as an independent Cross-Bencher, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, and I first met—in what seems a far-off age—when I was president of the National League of Young Liberals. I immediately recognised that I had encountered someone who had an extraordinary breadth of knowledge of world affairs. But as befits a former cathedral chorister, as he has pointed out, he also has a great knowledge of the relationship between faith and politics. Although he is not the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, to whom we have all paid tribute for the extraordinary work that she does in this area, we are all indebted to him for his reply today, and we look forward to the correspondence that will come from the detailed questions that have been raised.
	I thank all noble Lords who have made such rich, eloquent and knowledgeable contributions to this debate. None of us could have known how topical and timely
	this balloted Motion would prove to be. Many have spoken from first-hand experience. The noble Lord, Lord Patten, set us off with a metaphor about the unleashing of a tiger, and the noble Lord, Lord Elton, used a similar metaphor when he talked about the prairie fire that can spread. Many noble Lords referred to that fire, including the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson.
	The Minister actually took only 15 of his allotted 20 minutes, and with one speaker struck off the list—

Lord Newby: My Lords, I inform the noble Lord that the reason that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, took less than his time was because he did not have any more time than that to take.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: I am sorry, my Lords, but people stuck to their time limits and one noble Lord removed his name from the list, so there was some extra time. The courtesy of the House is all that I am trying to observe in thanking all those who have participated in this important debate.
	Article 18 demands an end to suppression, persecution and gross injustice. It should be at the heart of our concerns, not an orphaned right.

Baroness Morris of Bolton: My Lords, I apologise, but the time allotted for this debate has now elapsed and I must put the question.
	Motion agreed.

Health: Organic Food
	 — 
	Question for Short Debate

Lord Taverne: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the analysis made of the health benefits of organic food recently published in the British Journal of Nutrition.

Lord Taverne: My Lords, health and agriculture are areas in which it is vital that we base policy on evidence. I regret to say that the Department of Health has not always been very good at this. Several times I have been told that the department is neutral between evidence-based medicine and complementary medicine. Against the advice of the Chief Medical Officer, Sally Davies, it does not stop the National Health Service funding homeopathy. As the noble Lord, Lord Rees, has pointed out, if homeopathy worked other than as a placebo, many of the laws of science would have to be repealed. But the health department says it believes in patients’ choice, which suggests that if the patient chooses witchcraft, which also works as a placebo, the National Health Service should pay for witchcraft. Defra’s policy, on the other hand, has recently, on most issues, become more evidence-based. It is now firmly pro-GM and seems sceptical about the merits of organic farming—progress at last. I hope that Mr Paterson’s successor does not put the clock back.
	Turning to the evidence about organic food and health, from its foundation the organic movement owed more to myth than evidence. Rudolf Steiner, one of its founding fathers, had crazy ideas such as planting according to phases of the moon, and Hitler, who declared the end of the age of reason, was completely sold on organic farming. That may be a bit of ancient history, and certainly the movement has evolved and promotes good practices because of its care about the quality of the soil. But not long ago, Mr Patrick Holden, the previous director of the Soil Association, told a House of Lords Select Committee that science was not yet sufficiently developed to appreciate the virtues of the organic approach—which could presumably be better detected by some sort of magic.
	For some, the organic movement is still a kind of religion that is impervious to scientific evidence; for example, it perpetually proclaims the health benefits because organic food is “free of pesticides”. That is the main reason, according to polls, why the public are persuaded to buy it. The Soil Association still makes that claim but it has clearly never heard of Paracelsus, who taught long ago that,
	“it all depends on the dose”.
	The safety threshold for the use of artificial pesticides is so cautiously set that there is virtually no possibility of harm from their residues when we eat conventionally grown food. As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and others have pointed out, one cup of coffee contains more carcinogens than you would ingest from a whole year’s consumption of pesticide residues in fruit and vegetables. Of course, that should not stop you drinking coffee.
	The organic movement has ignored the most elaborate and careful scientific study conducted so far on the nutrient content of organic foods. That was a study by Dr Alan Dangour for the Food Standards Agency. It found no extra health benefits from organically grown crops compared with those grown conventionally. Incidentally, he was violently abused for his report and even received death threats. Then in 2012 a detailed study done for the American College of Physicians came to the same conclusion.
	However, the study published in the British Journal of Nutrition is the first serious study commissioned by the organic movement itself, and that has to be applauded. It was financed by the Sheepdrove Trust, which promotes organic farming, though of course that in itself does not invalidate its findings. Whether research is financed by Greenpeace or Monsanto is irrelevant if experiments can be reproduced and findings confirmed by independent expert scientists. The source of finance must always lead to careful scrutiny but in the end what matters is whether the results stand up.
	The article in question is based on a large number of peer-reviewed papers. The trouble is that scrutiny by expert opinion has found that its conclusions are flawed. There are several serious defects. I will try to summarise the main ones as briefly as I can. First, it suffers from publication bias, placing greater reliance on results that support the authors’ thesis than those that contradict it. Several commentators have expressed regret that the authors of the study have mixed good-quality data with poor-quality data.
	Secondly, the article refers to antioxidants in organically grown plants as if they are essential nutrients, which they are not, and it cites them as evidence of health benefits from organic crops, particularly for cancer protection. But the World Cancer Research Fund concluded in its systematic reviews that there is insufficient evidence to make these claims for antioxidants, although there is a clear relationship between the consumption of fruit and vegetables and a lower risk of cancer. Other highly rated studies have reached the same conclusion.
	Thirdly, the article claims that organic vegetables are good for health because they contain lower levels of nitrates and nitrites. According to Professor Tom Sanders, head of nutritional sciences at King’s College, that is the opposite of the findings of more recent research, which show that nitrates in vegetables lower blood pressure because in the body they are converted to the vasodilator nitric oxide.
	Fourthly, the article ignores the fact that pesticides are naturally present in plants. Many are toxic and carcinogenic. The production of natural pesticides is stimulated in response to attack by a pest or disease. The amounts of natural, possibly toxic, pesticides will thus be greater in unprotected crops that have been attacked—a situation that potentially applies to all organic crops. So if you are concerned about the pesticide content of your food, you should avoid organic products, especially fresh produce that is blemished or misshapen, which is likely to contain more potentially harmful natural pesticides than crops that have been protected by synthetic pesticides.
	However, most concerns about pesticide residues are unjustified. As the National Farmers’ Union has pointed out, there is no reason to choose between organic and conventionally grown food on health grounds. But I would add one qualification. Organic food costs more, so that those with modest means who feel they ought to buy it for health reasons may spend less on fruit and vegetables. Why does organic food cost more? It is not because organic farmers exploit the public, but because the yield of organic crops is lower; it is a less efficient use of land. The last thing the world needs is the less efficient use of good agricultural land. As the noted environmentalist James Lovelock has observed, if the whole world converted to organic farming, we would feed around one-third of the world’s population.
	Defra should make one important change of policy. It should stop spending more than £20 million a year on subsidising farmers to change to organic farming. Instead, the money should be spent on public research in plant science at our world-class institutes—the John Innes Centre, Rothamsted and the Scottish Crop Research Institute—for which £20 million would make a huge difference. It would be a far more beneficial use of public funds.

Viscount Ridley: My Lords, when I came here today I expected to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, on his speech, although I had no foresight of it, but I did not expect to find that I had chosen to wear exactly the same suit and tie. I can assure
	noble Lords that it is pure coincidence. I declare an interest as the owner of a farm which is not organic but is part of the Linking Environment And Farming organisation, and I am a fellow of the Academy of Medical Sciences.
	Many people buy organic food because they think it is healthier, and it is very important to find out whether that is true so as to be able to inform people whether they are right in that or they are being deceived. Study after study has failed to find a significant benefit from organic foods. This latest study, although admirably diligent and a perfectly respectable meta-analysis, is no exception, as the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, has said. It finds very little difference in any of the macronutrients that are of most importance; if anything, it finds slightly lower protein in organic food. It finds little difference in minerals, essential amino acids or all the other things we normally think of as nutrients. The only difference to be found was a tiny bit more of certain antioxidants in some samples, the bioavailability of which and their effect on health are presently unknown. It also finds a tiny bit less cadmium, a metal that is in any case vanishingly rare in the diet of most people and never reaches levels that are dangerous—unless you eat an awful lot of shellfish. It also finds slightly less in the way of synthetic pesticides, but of course as the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, has said, no fewer natural pesticides. In any case, as we know:
	“Our typical exposure to pesticide residues is at levels 10,000 to 10,000,000 times lower than doses that cause no observable effect in laboratory animals who are fed pesticides daily throughout their entire lifetimes”.
	That quote is from Carl Winter of the University of California, Davis, who has commented on the study in question.
	We have known for 24 years, since a key paper by Bruce Ames and Lois Gold was published in Science, that 99.99% of all the pesticides we ingest are natural, and that if you subject them to the typical tests to see whether they are carcinogenic, they prove to be just as likely to be carcinogenic as synthetic pesticides at very high doses and just as safe at low doses. The health benefits of organic food, if they exist at all, are immeasurably small. The science is therefore becoming very clear that many people who buy organic food because they think it is healthier for them must be wasting their money. It would be good if they were informed of that. In any case, it is worth adding that no one is quite sure that antioxidants at any dose are necessarily all good for us. After all, oxygen radicals are used by the body to make cancer cells kill themselves. We just do not know what the optimal dose of antioxidants is in the diet.
	I think it is worth stressing the health benefits of non-organic food in this debate. We must not forget that there are a number of disadvantages to organic food in terms of health. Some 53 people died and 3,950 were affected in the 2011 E-coli outbreak in Germany, which was caused by organic bean sprouts. It is highly relevant that they were organically grown bean sprouts because the conditions in which they were being incubated were exactly right to encourage the growth of these bacteria. By contrast, genetic modification has killed no one.
	We must remember that organic farming is all about the use of nitrogen fertiliser. That is how it got started: it was a technique for eschewing the use of synthetic nitrogen fertiliser. But if we look at what nitrogen fertiliser has done for people’s health, it is really very remarkable. I am sorry to get personal, but every noble Lord sitting in the Chamber should understand that 50% of the atoms in their body came through an ammonium factory—through being fixed from the air by the Haber-Bosch process; in other words, through synthetic fertiliser. The invention of synthetic fertiliser had a huge impact on the availability and price of food in the world and is what has enabled us to meet the first of the millennium development goals, which was to halve hunger by 2015, ahead of target. That is a huge health benefit which has come from non-organic food.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I should remind the House of my interests as set out in the register. They include a farm and vineyard which are not run on organic lines but are run on agro-ecological lines. I welcome this chance to debate these important issues. However, I think that the way in which my noble friend has posed the Question rather extrapolates the research beyond what it claimed. The way the Question is posed suggests that health benefits have been claimed by this research, and I think that that is incorrect. What it claims is that there are higher levels of antioxidants in organic vegetables and that there are somewhat lower levels of pesticide residues. Others, including my noble friend, have extrapolated conclusions which go beyond this piece of research.
	Here in the UK, I think that we have become quite complacent about the use of pesticides because we have a well regulated system and our farmers are very responsible in their use. But as someone who grew up in the shadow of the DDT crisis, I remain very aware of the dangers they can pose to our entire ecosystem. Nowadays we have endocrine disrupters which scientists agree are likely to pose a similar threat through inhibiting many species from breeding. That is the nub of the problem. The overuse of any of these manufactured pesticides can have effects that are so long term that it is hard for us to measure them in five, 10 or even 20 years. I can give a couple of examples from bananas, and of course they are from abroad where the use of pesticides is less regulated. Last year I was in Martinique, which is still suffering from the effects of the use of chlordécone, a pesticide that was used to control banana weevils. It remains in the environment for 700 years and it has now ruined the spiny lobster fishing grounds. Research published in 2012 in the Journal of Environmental Science revealed that psychomotor impairment is a result of contamination with that particular pesticide. Pesticides threaten beneficial insects too. I know that Defra is now involved in looking at neonicotinoids and the EU has chosen to impose a partial ban because of a link with the decline in our bee population. I think that there is a lot to worry about.
	I agree with my noble friend that it is hard to prove what the benefits of antioxidants are. In fact, in 2004 the American Chemical Society, which is the world’s largest scientific society, undertook an enormous piece of research whose results were published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. The lead author of that 2004 study,
	“cautions that total antioxidant capacity of … foods does not necessarily reflect their potential health benefit, which depends on how they are absorbed and utilized in the body. Researchers are still trying to better understand this process”.
	That is still true 10 years on.
	I am sure that my noble friend will remember that some years ago he wrote that,
	“studies show that environmental effects depend on the style of management, not the system of farming. In general, integrated farm management achieves the best results”.
	In that case he was quite right, but in this particular case he is wrong to shoot both the messenger and the message. We need an approach that recognises that every food and farming production method comes with a price. It may be, as the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, said, that artificial fertilisers have enabled us to feed ourselves adequately. However—I am sorry this debate is not included in the debate of the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, because this issue has a big bearing on its subject—some methods of farming, including artificial fertilisers, are leaving a very heavy price to be paid by future generations. I point to soil quality in this instance. The lack of organic matter in the soil is now a significant concern to farmers throughout the world and certainly here in the UK.
	I welcomed the NFU’s measured tone when it addressed the subject of my noble friend’s debate. It said:
	“The NFU would welcome further research into any nutritional differences between organic and conventionally farmed food. If future research could prove that organic food does provide additional nutritional benefits to conventionally farmed food it would help strengthen the organic point of difference to consumers”.
	To me, however, the organic movement is not primarily about my own health benefits. It is about the health benefits to the entire ecosystem and to future generations.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to wind up for the Opposition on this very interesting debate. I am conscious that many noble Lords in the next debate have great experience of the land and farming, and I wonder that they have not found the need to intervene. I always welcome debates in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Taverne. He is a rationalist—he has argued for many years in your Lordships’ House about the need for evidence-based policy—and a debunker of myths. I have to confess to him that at my home we have a fortnightly visit from an organic farmer in Herefordshire, delivering boxes of organic food to the urban dwellers of Birmingham. It is quite expensive but I feel quite good about it. I do not think that it is particularly to do with health; it is to do with the fact that it is rather nice to meet the farmer who has actually produced the food. I say to the noble Viscount that although Northumberland is
	rather a long way away, if he were to deliver boxes in Birmingham he would be sure of an equally warm welcome.
	The noble Lord started with a view of the Department of Health that I took to be a mite critical. His perception was that the department is neutral on evidence-based medicine as opposed to alternative medicine. I am interested in the response of the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, to that. My experience is that the Chief Medical Officer at the Department of Health works very hard to ensure that there is evidence, so I was quite surprised to hear what the noble Lord said. Surely the problem for the Department of Health is that alternative medicine is a fact of life. Many people want to receive it. As long as there is some regulation, I cannot see the problem with it. My question for the noble Baroness is whether the department has a policy on clinical commissioning groups commissioning alternative medicine for NHS patients. That is a relevant point on which to respond to the noble Lord.
	As this is a Department of Health issue, the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, may recall that when the National Institute for Clinical Excellence was formed by the previous Government, in addition to being asked for pronouncements on which medicines or treatments were clinically and cost effective, NICE was also asked to look at treatments that had been found not to be cost effective and clinically effective. One has to face up to the fact that many treatments in health globally have not been proven to be effective. It would be good to know why NICE has made such little progress on advising the health service on which treatments it should phase out.
	It is also interesting to debate pesticides. To a certain extent there is a parallel with the debate on the contribution of medicines. I am always struck that in the health service medicine is seen as a budget that always has to be contained and held back. There is a perception that increasing staffing and buying new medical equipment are good things, but that the drugs budget is always a matter of concern. If noble Lords look back 50 to 100 years, they will find that major advances in health outcomes have come from medicines. We need to be careful before we demonise the pharma industry and what it seeks to do.
	The noble Lord, Lord Taverne, says that organic food and the claims for it should be seen as a kind of religion, impervious to scientific evidence. On the use of pesticides, he says that there is very little evidence of harm if they are used in small doses—although I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, challenged him on that to a certain extent. We are not able to debate this as such because the noble Lord does not have a right to reply. However, while I fully accept his point that there is little or no evidence that the quality of food is improved if it is organic, he did not mention the environment. I would have put a question to him on that; perhaps I can tempt an intervention.

Lord Taverne: My final point was very much concerned with the environment: the last thing we want is a less efficient form of farming that makes inefficient use of good agricultural land, which is vital to the environment.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: That is a very fair point, although I hesitate to debate those issues, given such an expert audience. However, he would surely also accept that there is some evidence that some of the farming methods that have been used have been damaging to the environment. In that sense, those who would argue in favour of organic food surely have a point in saying that it can have a positive contribution. I suspect, whatever we say today, that those who like to have organic food will continue to want to enjoy it. We should not get in the way of consumer choice in that sense.

Lord Hunt of Chesterton: The word “environment” covers a lot of ground, but the specific issue that has been raised by critics of factory farming in the United States is the significant loss of biodiversity. I understand the point about the use of land made by the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, but the fact is that progressive loss of biodiversity is a serious matter. It is being contributed to by farming. I hope the Minister can confirm whether biodiversity is part of the Defra programme. In Britain, where there is a lot of organic farming or no farming, there is much greater biodiversity. I see that in Devon, where I often go.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. I realise that the noble Baroness is principally speaking for the Department of Health, but I hope, in her winding-up speech, she will cover some of the environmental impacts as well, because we have to look at the evidence in the round. I welcome the debate, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, will continue to come to your Lordships’ House with such entertaining issues in the future.

Baroness Jolly: My Lords, this has been an interesting debate and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Taverne for prompting it. I am grateful also to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, for their informed and expert contributions, as well as for challenges from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt.
	We need to set this debate in a wider context. Noble Lords will be well aware of the benefits of a healthy balanced diet and the general principles we should be following, such as eating plenty of fruit and vegetables and limiting our consumption of foods high in salt, fat and sugar. Overall, 30% of adults—less than a third—meet the recommendation to consume five or more portions of fruit and vegetables a day, with average consumption only 4.1 portions a day. Intakes of salt, sugar and saturated fat all exceed maximum recommended levels.
	We know that lower-income groups consume less fruit and vegetables than higher-income groups. Results from the latest report of the National Diet and Nutrition Survey show that only 24% of adults in the lowest-income group met the five-portions-a-day recommendation, compared to 38% in the highest group.
	Increasing our overall consumption of fruit and vegetables, regardless of their production method, and reducing the health inequalities associated with poor diets remain key challenges for public health nutrition.
	All fruit and vegetables count toward this, whether fresh or frozen, dried or canned, organic or not. There is no evidence to suggest that there is a nutritional premium in some forms above others. Frozen vegetables, for example, are as valuable as fresh in meeting our “five a day”—many of us will be aware from adverts that many of our vegetables, and certainly peas, are frozen much more quickly, so retain much more value and have lost their sugar when they reach the supermarket shelf
	It can be difficult balancing a family budget, but in providing a varied, balanced diet nobody need feel they have given their family a nutritionally inferior diet by choosing lower-priced, conventional products. The support provided to mothers and children in low-income households through the Healthy Start scheme includes, among other things, vouchers for fruit and vegetables of all types. We encourage families to get the best value for their vouchers, but we would not expect them to prioritise organic products. They are free to buy them if they wish and, as for all consumers, organic products provide a useful extension of consumer choice, but it is worth emphasising that, nutritionally, they are no better and no worse than conventional products—but the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, might feel happier after a conversation with his farmer.
	As my noble friend Lord Taverne has emphasised, good-quality evidence is as essential in public health as in other areas of government, and we remain committed to an evidence-based approach using the best available science to help us plan and deliver effective public health measures. Systematic reviews can be valuable tools in helping us to resolve areas of confusion by drawing together all the available evidence and assessing it in an ordered and defined way. This approach relies on a critical assessment of the quality of evidence available, so that each source can be given due weight and reliable conclusions drawn from the data.
	The recent analysis of organic foods that my noble friend referred to looks at differences in the nutritional composition of organic and conventional crops and draws conclusions on the potential health benefits of these compounds. Like him, I welcome the review as a further contribution to the discussion around organic foods. The study cast a wide net and brought together a large number of data sources. This active search for data is an essential first step if a systematic review is to be effective, but it is not immediately apparent in this case how differences in data quality from different sources have been taken into account. It has never been the case that any data are good data and I agree with my noble friend’s first point that the inclusion of all studies in this analysis, regardless of quality, must reduce confidence in its conclusions.
	In considering the health impacts of food and framing our public health messages, it is essential to look at diets as a whole rather than individual nutrients or components of food. Looked at in this context, even if taken at face value, the relatively small differences in the composition of organic and conventional foods suggested by the review would be unlikely to make a meaningful difference to nutrient intake and so would be expected to have little impact on health outcomes. It must be emphasised, as my noble friend Lord Taverne
	said in his second point, that none of these compounds is classified as a nutrient, nor seen as essential by the independent experts responsible for advising government on nutrition, the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition—or SACN.
	Perhaps I may respond to two points, one from the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, and the other from the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. On antioxidants, Public Health England does not advise taking antioxidant supplements, but recommends eating nutrients and potentially beneficial compounds by way of a healthy, balanced diet. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, inquired about researchers claiming health benefits. Researchers have claimed health benefits from eating foods higher in the nutrients that they claim are found at higher levels in organic food. Public Health England can see no good-quality evidence to support this.
	My noble friend Lord Taverne also referred to evidence that nitrates in vegetables may help to reduce blood pressure. This shows clearly that it is the totality of good-quality evidence that must be considered rather than any individual study, and this remains our approach to public health.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, inquired whether more research is needed on organic or conventional food. A large number of studies have already been done and these do not show clear nutrient differences. It is not clear that more research would find differences; indeed, the evidence as it stands suggests not.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, inquired about chemical contaminants in food and pesticides. EU organic food regulations allow a very limited range of pesticides in organic food production on particular crop types. It is therefore not surprising that synthetic pesticides are detected less frequently on organic foods than on conventionally farmed foods.
	In his final point, my noble friend Lord Taverne raised the matter of residues of natural pesticides in organic produce, especially when blemished or misshapen. It is worth bearing in mind that blemishes are not always due to natural pesticides. Fresh produce sold in the UK has to be fit for consumption, so people should use their normal discretion in buying food that looks unfit due to blemishes. Consumers cannot expect anything sold in their local supermarket or shop to be unfit for consumption. That it is from organic or other sources should have little effect on its safety in relation to pesticides.
	There is also a wide natural variation in nutrient content of crops arising from, for example, differences in growing conditions, storage or food preparation, all of which make distinctions between production methods less clear. Taken together, these factors mean that any relative health impact of conventional and organic products will be far outweighed by simply increasing overall fruit and vegetable consumption as part of the diet. This study does not change our current advice that organic fruit and vegetables do not offer meaningful nutritional benefits over and above conventionally produced crops.
	My noble friend Lord Taverne also commented on the policy of Ministers at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in respect of
	GM and organic farming. In both these areas, the Government’s policy takes due account of the relevant scientific evidence.
	I say in response to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that organic farming is one recognised approach to delivering sustainable food production. It is based on balanced systems which provide proven environmental outcomes, especially in terms of increased biodiversity, improved water quality and enhanced soil management. Specifically, organic farming creates a farmed environment that is beneficial to a range of birds, insects, mammals, plants and fungi. It also ensures high animal welfare standards, lower pesticide levels and greater consumer choice. For these reasons, the Government have chosen as part of ongoing common agricultural policy reform to continue to support organic conversion and maintenance under its new environmental land management scheme. The scheme will be open to applications in 2015, with new agreements starting from 1 January 2016.
	On homeopathy and alternative medicines, the Department of Health does not maintain a position on any particular complementary or alternative medicine treatments, including homeopathy. The majority of independent scientists consider the evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy to be weak or absent and they take the view that there is no plausible scientific mechanism for homeopathy.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, also pressed me on comments about the Chief Medical Officer and NICE. Certainly, NICE—as the noble Lord will know as he was in government when it was founded—was founded as an evidence-based approach to healthcare. The Chief Medical Officer has taken every opportunity to talk about an evidence base, in particular now in connection with antibiotics.
	However, it is important in this context and this debate today to look at the totality of evidence around diet. That is important when we frame our public health nutrition messages. It would be a mistake to take a few individual constituents of food and consider these in isolation and in relation only to individual foods or food groups. The key consideration is the impact that changes in food consumption make at the level of the diet as a whole. In this respect, the evidence is clear. The beneficial health effects associated with fruit and vegetable consumption come from eating fruit and vegetables as a whole, not from an individual nutrient.

Viscount Ridley: I wonder if I can press my noble friend a little further on the point raised by my noble friend Lord Taverne about the money going for conversion to organic farming. Given that organic sales have fallen in recent years and therefore demand is clearly down, and given that rates of conversion to organic farming are also down, would this not be an opportunity to save some public money?

Baroness Jolly: My noble friend asks a good question to which I regret I do not have either the status or the information to give him an answer that would satisfy either him or the House.

Lord Reid of Cardowan: I confess immediately that I am not a scientist, chemist, agricultural expert or farmer. However, as I understand it, the burden of what the Minister has said is that there is no evidential benefit from organic food as far as human beings and health are concerned. Can we work on the assumption that, whatever the details of it, the money spent by Defra is for environmental and sustainable agricultural reasons, rather than for reasons of health?

Baroness Jolly: That is absolutely right. I spoke earlier about the environmental pluses of organic farming. It is up to the consumer to decide how they spend their money on their fruit and veg. There are many reasons why an individual might wish to choose organic products but nutritional benefit should not be one of them.

Agriculture and Food Industry
	 — 
	Motion to Take Note

Moved by Lord Plumb
	That this House takes note of the role of agriculture and the food industry in the economy of the United Kingdom.

Lord Plumb: My Lords, while I am sorry that my noble friend the Minister is not able to attend this debate, I am pleased to hear that it is because he is actively promoting the strengths of the UK food and farming sector today to an international audience in Glasgow during the Conservative games. He said that we have much to offer as a place for inward investment and as a trading partner. I hope therefore that, as we go forward, we are singing from the same hymn sheet.

Lord Reid of Cardowan: It may have been a slip of the tongue but I can assure the noble Lord that Glasgow has never been a welcoming host for Conservative games. I take it that he meant the Commonwealth Games.

Lord Plumb: I stand corrected, knowing my age, although I thought that I said the Commonwealth Games.
	I welcome my noble friend Lady Northover, who takes the Minister’s place. This debate is to take note of the role of agriculture and the food industry in the economy of the UK. I think that it follows the debate that has just taken place well. I declare my interest as a farmer, as past president of the National Farmers’ Union, in European farm organisations as a whole, in the European Parliament and in an international policy group on food, farming and trade, which covers some 40 countries and different farming societies.
	I have lived through some testing and challenging times. I speak with a passion for farming and the food industry. I have been encouraged by recent developments to work much more closely with the food industry in marketing British food, the display of which was second to none earlier this week at the Royal Welsh Show, as in other exhibits round the country. Those
	who see it have to realise that it just does not grow on trees. I sometimes despair when the talk about the growth of the economy—reducing the nation’s deficit to deal with debt and safeguarding our economy—means industrial growth, with agriculture not on the radar of many economic forecasts. I hope that today during this discussion we can put it on the radar.
	Farming is certainly not a job for the faint-hearted. It is a risky business, dealing with a changing climate, disease and often loss—certainly with TB eradication still meaning a loss of up to 90 cows a day from our herds. Then there is the loss of land for so many other purposes, such as housing and roads. We have to live with price swings from imports related to currency values, which by nature means that the business is a long-term one.
	What is the contribution to the economy from agriculture and food production, processing and retailing, which employs well over 3.5 million people? Farming’s contribution to the economy increased by a staggering 67% between 2007 and 2013 in gross value added terms, contributing an extra £10.4 billion to the UK economy than it did in the five years between 2004 and 2008. This is in stark contrast to the wider economy, even accounting for recent improvements in economic performance in the UK, which was 0.6% smaller in 2014 than its peak in 2008, mainly of course due to the banking crisis.
	Whereas the UK in general has struggled for success—moving now, I submit, in the right direction—the agricultural output from the UK has increased by 59% in the last decade. Agriculture’s importance to the UK economy is emphasised by the fact that the United Kingdom has 142,000 businesses registered as farm businesses. That is more than the number of businesses involved in the motor trade, education, finance and insurance, and equates to 5.5% of the overall total. In more rural areas, of course, agriculture is obviously much more important to the local economy.
	The self-sufficiency ratio is estimated to be 60% for all food produced in 2013 and 73% for indigenous-type foods. The first time I heard Winston Churchill speak, many years ago, he said:
	“Thirty million people living on an island where we produce enough food for fifteen million is a spectacle of majesty and insecurity this country can ill afford”.
	It makes you think. It is no different today. There is double the population but still 60% of the amount needed to feed our people. Imports exceed exports, as we well know, affecting the balance of trade. In the money terms of 2013, the deficit in 1990 was £10 billion. In 2013 it was £20 billion. Self-sufficiency at 60% must therefore be improved considerably to play an even greater part in the economy. This requires investment, management, skills and the taking of risks—risks that have to be taken, particularly in farming, for growth.
	The comparison with other countries is interesting. In the United States, self-sufficiency in food is 130%; in France, it is 120%; and in Germany it is 93%. Japan is deeply worried about its level of 40% and has set a target of 50% by 2020. Many crops, particularly in the
	United States, are also produced and processed for energy, particularly wheat: 40% of the wheat in America is produced solely for energy.
	I congratulate the Government on the incentives that they have shown in the last few years to encourage technical and scientific research. That has helped to transform farming. Through incentives from the European Union, we have seen the diversification of concern for the environment, which shows a clear balance in welfare and caring for the countryside compared to what used to be.
	Today, 70% of our modern agricultural equipment has some sort of precision component inside it. A state-of-the-art combine harvester has up to eight computers on board. Think of those going at this very moment: eight computers in one operating combine harvester. Satellite technology is used to avoid soil damage and is being picked up and used in various ways by the farming community. We now have robotics, which has entered the milking parlour. The cow decides when it is going to be milked, not the person, and that is an interesting change. I am told that the incidence of mastitis, for instance, is far less in robotic milking than hitherto. I find that interesting and difficult to believe, but that is nevertheless the situation as I read it.
	The farming and food industries have therefore already shown how they can help with economic growth and collaboration, helping to pave the way for home consumption and increased export opportunities while maintaining a high-quality product and the welfare of both plants and animals. Both industries have demonstrated support for integrated farming practices, training and development opportunities for succession and sustaining supply chains. The business and trading culture is progressive and aggressive, embracing innovative technology, adapting to the ever changing complications of common agricultural policy reform—I could spend the next two hours talking about that—the environment, finance and business policy, and linking more closely to the food retailers through contracts.
	These conditions call for a highly educated, skilled workforce with the ambition to embrace these revolutionised industries that provide a duality of technological progression and environmental respect. The revolution of these industries has at times been unforgiving, with winners and casualties, but it has also demonstrated the robust restructuring and adaptation needed for efficiency and success. Whether we are talking about a farming plc or a small farm business diversification project, there is no shortage of innovation from young entrepreneurs discovering and exploiting future markets. That is an exciting and well thought-out challenge—a well practised route to market with considerable future prospects. Growth and opportunity will need to be managed in an intelligent way that embraces new technology and new markets while respecting the limitations of resource and environment. We need a future workforce to satisfy a considerable and growing global population. Our food and farming industries can be criticised for hiding their light for future employment opportunities under a bushel. More must be done to attract the highest calibre of recruits to take up jobs that offer magnificent and challenging career prospects.
	Considerable work has been achieved with the land-based and environmental sector skills council and Defra to create the industry-focused agriskills and agritech strategies. There is a plethora of industry initiatives, schemes and awards, which provide much needed support and attraction for new blood into the industry, with a strategy for consolidation shortly to be discussed and hopefully implemented. British agriculture has embraced radical changes in both policy and its own PR over the last decade. It has demonstrated strength and resilience through the economic downturn, worked hard to understand shortfalls and has lobbied for a workable policy while highlighting its products, service and methods of production.
	Agricultural colleges have embraced the challenge of becoming fit for purpose. They are now demonstrating the diversity of the two industries with a range of suitable and improved quality courses and are enjoying an increased number of applications. I was a governor at Cirencester for a number of years. It was a struggle to get 400 students into the college each year. Now there are 1,400, and many more are knocking on the door. Other colleges are finding exactly the same. The university milk-round of recruitment will now hopefully be seeing a long-awaited change. Industries will be fighting to retain their supply of graduates as intelligent young men and women see the exciting opportunities offered by the food and farming industries.
	There has been a self-regulating internal revolution in these two industries. They have risen to considerable challenges, ranging from market conditions to environmental conflict. These industries are renowned for adapting to change while ensuring an essential supply of food and sensible, realistic caretaking of our most precious resource. There can be no logical reason for these industries to be excluded from Britain’s plans for economic growth in a hungry world. There is nothing, but nothing, more important than food security. I beg to move.

Baroness Parminter: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Plumb, and I thank him for securing this debate this afternoon. It is testament both to the importance of the issue and the respect in which he is held around this House as a doughty champion of the countryside that he has secured so many speakers on a Thursday afternoon. I congratulate him.
	He has done a very good job of outlining the economic contribution that the farming community in particular makes to our country, to which I would add the significant contribution of the food and drink industry. When we think of our great manufacturing sector, such as it is still in this country, we do not always think first of the food and drink industry, yet it accounts for more than 15% of our total manufacturing turnover in the United Kingdom and more than 400,000 jobs. That is a significant achievement, and one on which we would do well to reflect further.
	If we are going to continue the successes of agriculture and of the food and drink industries, we will have to work hard to face the challenges around food security, as my noble friend Lord Plumb said. We have to feed
	9 billion people by 2050 in a world constrained by climate change and the resource implications—the loss of nutrients in soil and loss of water—that our food and drink industries and our farming communities will have to contend with, if they are to produce the food that we are going to need in future. We need to find a new way in which to produce that food.
	We hear a lot about “sustainable intensification”, which means different things to different people. For me, it means working with nature and the environment to conserve the resources that we will need in future—the soil and water—to grow the food that we will need. We will have to address not only the challenges of producing food more sustainably but the challenges of the effects of some poor diets on people in our country and around the world. It is a salutary fact that 40% of men and 30% of women in this country are overweight, and that one-third of all 10 to 11 year-olds are equally overweight. The fact that we are not feeding our nation healthy food and that at the same time we are struggling to provide the resources that our industries will need in future is something that the Government will have to take more of a lead on in future—linking the health agenda with the agenda for producing food sustainably. I do not say that our Government have not done anything; they obviously have done an awful lot. We have the agri-tech strategy and responsibility deals, but they are not brought together. We do not have a co-ordinated strategy for linking the work that we need to do on health and on producing food in a sustainable way. Therefore, we are not setting our industries and the farming community the clear agenda that they are crying out for.
	We are also lagging behind in comparison to other parts of the world. While I know that many noble Lords would not wish us to be compared with what is being done in Nordic countries or within Brazil, there are many similarities between the UK and the Netherlands—not least a very similar agenda for reform of the European Union. There they have a very clear set of nutritional guidelines, which they use as a means to communicate with their public about what foods need to be eaten. They give their industry guidance as to what they think it should produce, and they equally have a very clear public procurement policy, which they use to drive forward the production and purchase of sustainable food.
	The Government have a record of doing a number of different initiatives, such as the agri-tech strategy and the responsibility deal. In 2012, they launched the Green Food Project, which was a very welcome initiative, bringing together a large number of stakeholders in this field to look at the challenges that the food and agriculture industries face and to see whether we could find some common solutions. Those stakeholders included the NFU, the CLA, the Food and Drink Federation, EBLEX, WRAP, the Food Ethics Council and the WWF—a whole breadth of organisations involved in the very large food business field. That first report received a ministerial foreword and there were some very clear conclusions. When the report from the second year of the Green Food Project was released last summer, there was no ministerial foreword and no launch; I found it buried on the Defra website. There was no commitment to take forward any further action,
	and I found that a great pity—particularly since all those diverse groups together had come up with a set of principles to produce healthy and sustainable food to which they all jointly agreed.
	There were eight simple principles to be used as a guide for outlining nutritional standards for our country and for driving important public procurement. Those eight principles included an agreement on moderating meat consumption and encouraging the production of plant-based foods. I remind the noble Lords that that group included EBLEX, the lobbying and representative organisation for the beef and lamb sector, the WWF and the Food and Drink Federation. These groups, which would not normally come together, are in fact coming together under a government initiative and producing a clear and coherent set of principles to guide the industry in giving it a mandate to do something different about the food that it offers and equally to drive public procurement.
	My worry is that the list that was produced by the group will sink without a trace. My understanding is that it went out for peer review. What do the Government intend to do with the set of principles that the Green Food Project steering group has drawn up? My understanding is that it could be buried in some website that Defra co-funds, but that it will not be used to drive forward a clear vision for the industry or drive forward procurement. That is a great pity, particularly since this week we saw the launch of the Government’s public procurement plan, which is a very welcome step forward. However, when it talks about some of the steps that we would like to see in procurement—and let us not forget that the public sector in the UK spends £1.2 billion on public procurement—it says nothing about meat moderation. Several of my colleagues might say that it is not the Government’s job to intervene in such a sensitive area, but this public procurement plan, which we launched this week, makes it clear that if you are in receipt of a government contract for food to serve meals, you have to provide fish twice a week, and one of those has to include oily fish. So it is prepared to say something about fish, but it should really say something about meat.
	The Government have some initiatives in this field, but if we are to develop our food and drink industry properly we must make sure that we carry on with the work that we started with the Green Food Project and take it forward so that our industry can carry on in the way that we know it can and should.

Lord Palmer: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, was a childhood hero of mine, most especially when I saw clips of him on television being driven in a smart car with the number plate NFU 1. I congratulate him on the way in which he has introduced this important debate. It is very disappointing how few members of Her Majesty’s Opposition seem to have put their names down to take part in it.
	I have been in the food industry all my working life—first, as a primary producer and then as a manufacturer. I have now done the full circle, as I try to farm in the Scottish Borders. In one of the earliest
	debates that I took part in, introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Wade of Chorlton, nearly a quarter of a century ago, I wore a tie which I am proud to wear today, inscribed “British Meat”. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, asking how I got it. He had forgotten that he gave it to my father, who was the last chairman of Huntley & Palmer Foods, when the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, was a director of our biggest competitor, United Biscuits.
	This debate is perfectly timed as combines start to roll and British lamb is at its very best. It is therefore rather distressing to note that one of our major retailers is promoting New Zealand lamb. Much has changed since the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, was in charge of the NFU. I started to try to farm back in 1979, and I inherited a workforce of 17. I am now farming a bigger acreage with just three men, all of whom were brought up at home, and I am immensely proud of them.
	It must not be forgotten that the right weather at the right time can make a huge difference to a farmer’s profitability. On my relatively modest acreage, that can mean £100,000 either way. It is not good management, it is pure luck. We should not forget that 50 years ago 48% of the national wage was spent on food; today that percentage figure has dropped to just 9.1%—a huge difference.
	In recent weeks, more details have emerged on the new basic payment scheme coming out of Brussels, which is being introduced next year to replace the current single payment scheme. Information has been issued on the new element of reform, namely, greening. However, it is frustrating that, at this time, we are still awaiting the critical details so that farmers can plan for planting with confidence in 2015. I gather that even in Essex, ground has already been ploughed for next year’s harvest.
	The important role of crop protection products in producing healthy and affordable food needs to be supported by regulation that ensures that growers have access to as broad a range of crop protection tools as possible. I believe that we need a level playing field on the availability of plant protection products for UK farmers and growers, with their contemporaries in Europe and the rest of the world, both for major crops and specialist crops. To achieve this we need improved harmonisation of registration processes between the UK and other European member states, risk-based decision-making and development of novel techniques in plant protection.
	The value of agricultural output has almost doubled in the last 10 years. Caring for the countryside—and here, of course, I have to include farming—is a highly capital-intensive industry and it is vital that farm businesses have access to the appropriate incentives that will allow farmers to invest for the future. The noble Lord, Lord Plumb, emphasised how incredibly important this aspect is. Farm businesses need certainty and it would be prudent for the annual investment allowance to be set at a permanent higher level and extended to farm buildings so as to ensure that there is continued investment and growth in this important sector.
	Pests and diseases are showing increasing resistance to crop protection materials. For example, herbicide-resistant black grass, first seen back in 1982, is now found on as many as 16,000 farms in 24 counties in the United Kingdom. We need regulators to account for future challenges when it comes to crop protection. Investment in crop protection in Europe has fallen from 33.3% of worldwide investment in the 1980s to just 7.7% today. We need regulators to be aware that overzealous regulation drives away investment and is in danger of turning the European Union into an agricultural backwater when it should be the world’s powerhouse of agricultural development and innovation.

The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, like others, I must start by declaring an interest as a farmer and, perhaps uniquely, I am a fruit grower; I am not sure anyone else here is. I also pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Plumb for having initiated this debate.
	I want to concentrate my remarks on trying to illustrate to what extent over past decades—and, I am certain, in future decades—the agricultural sector was and will be dependent on its research base. It always interests me how quickly policy, as determined by successive Administrations and Ministers, changes for this sector. For example, in the early days when my noble friend was starting his career at the NFU, food security after the war and the need to ensure that farm incomes matched urban incomes would have been important, hence the deficiency payments.
	However, to back up the rapid changes in agricultural production, there was massive and very successful investment in agricultural research, development and extension. This led to a dramatic increase in productivity. We farmers would like to claim the credit for this, but if we are absolutely honest, we knew that we were enormously lucky to be able to exploit some rapidly moving technology in agricultural engineering, plant breeding, animal husbandry and the like. But, of course, in the very seeds of success lay the future problems, such as surpluses, leakages into soil, air and water—in other words, environmental damage—and animal welfare issues, as husbandry lots got ever larger. People resented the changes to the landscape. They noted the loss of biodiversity. Frankly, it was not surprising that, if you were trying to crop ever larger areas ever more intensively, there would be losses to biodiversity, as indeed there were. Of course, the agenda changed to meet some of these issues. Human nutrition has been referred to, and there have been a number of startling food safety issues, arising sometimes from production systems but very often from imported diseases which, in an era of globalism, become ever more prevalent.
	So there was little enthusiasm, for more than 25 years I would say, for supporting production systems. When I say that the policies changed, I have to reflect with some shame that on my farm I have not only, 40 years ago, taken grants for taking out hedges, but 20 years ago I took another grant for putting them back in again. That illustrated how one tries to do what is right by the system of the day, though successive generations may not welcome what we have done.
	Research emphasis in recent years has been particularly on enhancing farm biodiversity. Much can be done on this; it does not have to be organic. As we heard in the earlier debate, there are many other ways of delivering on this. Delivery of ecosystem services is rather a jargon concept, I admit, but it is nevertheless a very important point. Farmers have instinctively understood that soil conservation, flood control and water purity are services that the land manager provides. Of course, we now understand how this can be encompassed into food production systems in a way that does not lead to adverse consequences. As a fruit grower, I am now very much more aware, as I should have been in earlier years, of just how reliant we are on insect pollinators—not just imported honey bees but a wider range of insects. That is where getting the biodiversity of the plants right, at least in the pollinator strips, can play a very important part.
	Likewise, there has been a greater emphasis on the non-food crops: biofuels, vegetable oils, pharmaceuticals and plant based chemicals. There is nothing new in this. Agriculture has always provided for industry, manufacturing, energy and transport, but with the range of non-food crops we are moving into some new areas of cropping.
	The long and the short of it is that food production is the core business of agriculture. Food production must be done, in modern parlance, sustainably—in other words by reducing its adverse impacts on the environment and delivering, so far as is possible, enhancement to the environment. We have been encouraged—this has been successful—to get closer to the customer and add value to our products. Farmers’ markets and shops have been a useful way of making the consumer more aware of where their food comes from.
	I go back to the present occupation. We are back to taking food security much more seriously; not so much in the United Kingdom and Europe, but globally. The figure of 9 billion people who need to be fed, requiring at least a 60% increase in production, has already been mentioned. Companies such as Syngenta, which represent a large part of the research base, not just here in Europe but elsewhere, have sent themselves the target of increasing average productivity of the major crops that they support by 20% without using more land, water or inputs. This is a challenging target, but a sensible one and I am absolutely certain, given the success that we have had in previous generations, that it is realistic.
	The Government are to be congratulated on having recently introduced the new industrial strategy for the field of agri-tech. My noble friend Lord Plumb referred to robotics, satellite tracking and the like and the prevalence of new entrepreneurial farmers adopting systems that come out of molecular biology and other biological sciences. All this is very valuable. The investment of £160 million of new money in this industry-led strategy is to be welcomed. But, again, I say that unless you bed all this down in agronomy and in farming systems that are demonstrated to work and to reduce impacts and leakages, we will miss the vital connection. I worry enormously about the great loss we have had within the research and development
	sector over the past 25 years. Frankly, universities have very little, if any, capacity to do field research now. I used to chair something called the Agricultural and Food Research Council. That is now subsumed into the BBSRC. Those institutes have almost all gone—not John Innes or Rothamsted, which have been mentioned, but so many of the others. There is no horticultural station left. As a fruit grower, I worry enormously that East Malling research station, which is a private, charitable run trust, has an enormous responsibility but very little funding any more. Again, we are seeing whole sectors of our agricultural production and horticulture—strawberries, raspberries and the like—are being left without a research base.
	We should not rely on Holland and other European countries, as I do. We need to take stock of our national capacity and recognise that, if we do not keep the research infrastructure in place, in future we will lack the capacity to achieve the great success that farmers have witnessed in adopting new technologies.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I declare my interests as in the register. I say to my noble friend Lord Selborne that, although I grow fruit in my vineyard, I turn it into wine.
	I congratulate my noble friend Lord Plumb on his splendid introduction and on the historical perspective which he brings to the House. It is an exceptional perspective from which we have all profited over the years, as we have done this afternoon.
	We have all heard of peak oil—the concept that oil is about to run out. However, recently a new concept of peak soil has been mentioned. On current trends, the world has about 60 years of topsoil left. That is because we are so incredibly profligate with our soil use. One inch of topsoil takes about 500 years to form naturally. However, over the past few decades, we have allowed it to erode. Every time there are floods, we see topsoil flowing down our rivers. Irrespective of whether they are brown, sandy or limestone coloured, that is all soil flowing out to Europe. People are worried about whether we are staying in the European Union. Actually, Britain is leaving—the soil is all going and it is all ending up in Europe.
	The reason I have chosen to ask my noble friend some questions on this topic is because there was going to be an EU soil framework directive. The UK Government was relying on this to provide the framework for soil protection in the same way as the water framework has incentivised a lot of good work to take place with regard to water in the UK. Sadly, the soil framework directive will not now be put on the table. In the UK we have very little statutory protection to protect England’s soils, although soils are indirectly protected by other legislation, such as that covering the prevention of pollution and contamination. However, that is not the same thing as protecting the soil itself, which worries me. I know that some people have been landowners—especially some noble Lords in this House—for hundreds of years but many people own their land only during their lifetime. As I said, one inch of topsoil can take 500 years to form naturally. It does not take much maths to work out how many generations
	it takes to replace that topsoil. Therefore, although one may be a landowner, one is really only a steward as far as the soil is concerned. Will my noble friend consider what sort of statutory protection can be introduced in this regard? I know that the Government are committed to having less regulation. However, I understand that the proposals for the CAP cross-compliance measures do not concentrate on soil protection.
	As regards peak soil, John Crawford, the director of the sustainable systems programme at Rothamsted, said:
	“We know far more about the amount of oil there is globally and how long those stocks will last than we know about how much soil there is”.
	He continued:
	“Under business as usual, the current soils that are in agricultural production will yield about 30 percent less than they would do otherwise by around 2050”.
	We have talked about the need to feed more people more efficiently and the need to be self-sufficient. However, if our soil is not in good condition, that will not happen. I was struck by another commentary from Tim Hornibrook in the same article in this month’s edition of AgProfessional from which I quoted the words of John Crawford. I shall read out that commentary later. Indeed, I could have read out the whole article, it was so good. One of the main drivers of soil degradation is the trend towards less diversity in agriculture. I should have declared my interest as a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Agroecology, as we hear a lot in that group about the fact that mixed farming is much better at keeping soil in good condition because of the amount of organic matter that is added to it through that method of farming. Tim Hornibrook, head of Macquarie Agricultural Funds Management Limited, stated in AgProfessional:
	“In a lot of agriculture it has become a monoculture, so you just don’t the diversity of plants that are necessary for healthy soil, and often the agricultural practices are all about mining the soil rather than managing it”.
	I thought that phrase was particularly powerful as we need to fight the attitude that the soil is there to be mined and we do not have to exercise stewardship over it or care for it. There is a lot of evidence that excessive use of fertilisers can also damage soil, for example, by altering its acidity, or even salinity, in ways that reduce microbial activity and therefore ultimately plant growth.
	Soils in England face the threats of erosion by wind and rain and compaction due to heavy machinery being driven over them. There is a conflict in that regard. As all farmers know, you have to get your machinery on to the land and if you have wet land, that is more difficult. Good advice and agri-tech can help with such issues, given that machines are beginning to come on to the market which are designed to spread the load in a different way. However, the biggest threat is posed by the decline in organic matter. The loss of soil organic matter and its supply of nutrients makes it very difficult for us to increase the quantity of food we grow until we solve that issue.
	It is no coincidence that the Food and Agriculture Organization has declared 2015 the International Year of Soils as it is so worried about what is happening to
	soils worldwide. I mention floods and want to end on the following note. We have worried about the effect of floods on soils and farmland, but that is as nothing compared with the effects of drought. Drought resilience is needed and soil that is like a sponge which can hold the water. If we are to be able to grow crops in a climate where we do not know whether we will be subjected to floods or droughts, we need our soil to be in peak condition.

Lord Bilimoria: My Lords, less than 2% of our labour force meets 60% of our food needs. Agriculture and food is a crucial aspect of our economy. However, I do not believe that the sector is given the appreciation or recognition that it deserves in light of its importance. I do not believe that we take enough pride in our food and agriculture, as we could and should do. I believe that we take it for granted.
	In my industry, my own product, Cobra Beer, is made predominantly from agricultural products, and the vast majority of that is, of course, malt, which is made from British barley. My joint-venture partners are Molson Coors, the American-Canadian global brewers, and I have heard Pete Coors, the vice-chairman, speak with immense pride about the relationships that Coors has had with farmers for more than a century. Such is the interdependence that exists between agriculture and industry.
	I thank the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, for his excellent speech and for leading this debate with authority—as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Palmer—as a former driver of “NFU 1”. The agri-food sector, as the noble Lord said, contributes almost £100 billion to the economy, or 7.4% of our GVA. That is huge—3.6 million people, or 13% of national employment. Nevertheless, can the Minister confirm that employment in the agri-food sector has actually fallen over the past 12 months, which is the largest decrease in agriculture, falling by 18,000?
	The Minister, George Eustice, has said that the industry should have “confidence in its future”, and that there is,
	“growing consumer interest in food provenance”.
	He mentioned, as we have heard in today’s debate, that the world population is set to top 9 billion, so we will see increased demand for more westernised foods, including dairy products and meats. The demand for food is forecast to rise by 60% by 2050, and we need a vibrant, profitable farming industry in the UK to cope with this demand.
	In February 2014, George Eustice said:
	“The rural economy is worth £211 billion a year. Rural areas are home to one fifth of the English population, yet they support nearly a third of England’s businesses”.
	This is excellent. However, the vast majority of these businesses are SMEs, and we need to create the right environment for these businesses to flourish. Cambridge University, in a report by the Centre for Industry and Government and the Institute of Manufacturing, said that,
	“many descriptions of the food and drink sector are oversimplified”,
	and that,
	“the food and drink sector is a key element of future strength for the UK, providing value to the national economy in financial, strategic and social terms”.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, said, the NFU has said:
	“agriculture’s contribution … has increased by a staggering 54 per cent between 2007 and 2012”.
	The UK has 142,000 businesses that are registered as farm businesses. This is phenomenal. The levels of growth are incredible. We should be proud that we are the third largest wheat producer in Europe. We are the third largest milk producer in Europe. We are the largest producer of sheep meat in Europe. We are the fourth largest producers of beef in Europe. Yet we have heard that there is a trade deficit and that our self-sufficiency is actually declining. This is a concern.
	On the positive side, British shoppers actually want to back British farming. According to the NFU, 86% of shoppers are,
	“as likely or more likely to want to buy more traceable food that has been produced on British farms”.
	In the other place, the House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee produced a food security report earlier this year and made the point:
	“The UK is currently 68% self-sufficient in foods which can be produced here”.
	However, it says:
	“There has been a steady decline … over the last 20 years”.
	A lot of our food is imported from Europe. The report goes on to say:
	“As part of the CAP, many of our farmers receive support from the EU”.
	Can the Minister give us an update on the CAP? Is it working to our advantage? It is a contentious issue.
	We have heard before about the £160 million agri-tech strategy, which is about supporting collaborative research and development and translating this into practice. However, I would submit, and the committee submitted, that this is insufficient. The proof of that is the first round of bids for this was six times oversubscribed. Do the Government agree?
	I am proud to have been appointed recently as the chancellor of the University of Birmingham, and last week I visited our department of chemical engineering and saw the amazing work that the food microstructure group is doing in linking up with industry and helping the food industry. If more of this can take place, the better it will be. The green revolution in India, a country that for centuries had famines, took place only because of bold innovation; India no longer has famines.
	The UK must ensure that we work with the EU to address the issue of CAP and also the issues of food security and innovation. The reality is that from 1940 to 1990 yields were rising. Since then, farm wheat yields have stalled; there is no rising trend. Will the Government confirm that the yields have plateaued and that we desperately need innovation? In this sense, we need to increase agricultural output, including GM. What is the Government’s view on GM? The NFU policy is that it is in favour of GM technology. It believes that GM will be one of the solutions. Do the
	Government agree? Are they willing to work with the EU in tackling the issue of GM? There is a lot of resistance in the EU. The EU regulatory framework has prevented development of GM and has one of the strictest approval procedures for GM products in the world. AB Sugar has suggested that the Government could help change the perception of GM foods by seeking to move the public debate away from viewing GM as a blanket technology and instead focus on the benefits it can bring to society in specific applications. Will the Government work towards doing this, because we desperately need it? Again, the relationship between universities, innovation and research is crucial.
	The next issue is agriculture as a business. I have seen with my wife—who is South African; her family had farmed for more than a century in South Africa—that although farmers can be great farmers, they are not always great business people. What are the Government doing to encourage business training for farmers in the UK, encouraging them to attend business schools and attend courses in business, particularly given that so many of them are SMEs? For example, there is the business growth and development programme at Cranfield, which I attended. Are there equivalent programmes that the Government can encourage to be tailor-made for farmers, to encourage them to be more competitive?
	I conclude with the GREAT Britain campaign, which promotes all that is great about Britain, both within the UK and abroad. Why does it not feature agriculture and food products more? This is an industry that is not appreciated enough, that we should be proud of and that should be a top priority for this Government.

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to be able to take part in this debate and I thank my noble friend Lord Plumb for introducing the topic. It is extremely important that the agricultural and food aspect of rural activity is not overlooked, as the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, was just emphasising. I declare my interest as a UK farmer in a less favoured area, as a member of NFU Scotland and as president of the National Sheep Association. I might also declare an interest in that we introduced new farming practices into the area I now live in 270 years ago. I am conscious of not just adding half an inch of topsoil; we perhaps have done rather better than that.
	Because agriculture takes up a major part of the national land area, its influence extends well beyond purely the economy of the UK. However, today, it is the economy that needs to be emphasised, and the aspect that I will highlight is the sheep industry. The government figure for the total output of the livestock industry last year was just over £9 billion, of which just over £1 billion was from sheep. My noble friend Lord Plumb mentioned what a volatile world agriculture works in, whether due to the weather or to the markets. After a sodden winter, we have had one of the most favourable spring and summers that we have seen for some time.
	Sheep, along with many other commodities, have just had an amazing run of prices in the past year, but that has suddenly gone over a cliff and the prices are back below what they were two years ago. My noble friend Lord Selborne talked about the future we are looking at, and all this is of small account when we look at it from the perspective given to us by Professor John Beddington, the chief scientific officer, in his “perfect storm” report. This summed the situation up by saying that we have less than 20 years to deliver 40% more food, 30% more fresh water and 50% more energy to meet the demands of a rising world population.
	The sheep industry in this country is looking at this challenge and is gearing itself up. In spite of the fact that a great deal of sheep production occurs in very extensive situations, science is beginning to provide suitable tools to move the industry into the technological age. Used intelligently, electronic tagging of sheep will bring greater detail and control into flock management, and modern genetic screening will have a place in improving foundation stock. Great strides are also being made in the application of vaccination against major sheep diseases, and we are fortunate that a great deal of the ground-breaking work is produced by the bioscience industry in the UK, particularly, dare I say it, in Scotland. The object has to be to get more production from fewer and healthier animals. However, for the most extensive production areas, this all has to be tempered with the ewes’ survivability in the circumstances that exist.
	I want to draw the Government’s attention to another aspect. Now that the framework of the next common agricultural policy has been drawn up, one particular element is causing distortion to the sheep market, due to an EU competence on animal health. In the 28 years since the crisis of BSE in cattle erupted, no case of a natural transfer of BSE to sheep has ever been found. Your Lordships will be aware that as a precaution, and latterly under an EU regulation, all UK sheep carcasses have to be split to assist with the extraction of the spinal cord. This and other measures are adding £23 million to the cost of UK sheep marketing, and I ask my noble friend to see what can be done about that and to see that it is reviewed.
	It will not be any surprise to your Lordships that another aspect of the UK in which food and agriculture plays a part is politics, and at present this is particularly true in devolution politics. As it happens, food and farming form a much larger proportion of the economy in Scotland than they do in the balance of the United Kingdom, so it has proved a very rich field for politicians looking to show what differences there are between agricultural administration in Scotland and in the rest of the country.
	What would appear to be, at first sight, a particularly crazy policy has been introduced in Europe governing the provision of money through the CAP to agriculture. In drawing up the financial national envelopes of all member states for Pillar 1, the policy is that, wherever they are now, they should be adjusted to the equivalent of €196 per hectare by 2020. This is to be implemented in stages and, for those currently receiving less than €196, there is a supply of what is known as convergence money to bring them up to this level. In the UK,
	current funding is the equivalent of €229 per hectare, whereas in Scotland, which is characterised by a great deal of more extensive land and farming units, it works out as €130, which is said to be one of the lowest rates in Europe. As it happens, within the current settlement the UK received an element of convergence money which, given the figures, the Scots would like to have appropriated as their own—you can probably understand that, given the background people associate with the Scots—but instead this was averaged out across the whole of the UK.
	From then on we have heard nothing but how much better Scottish farmers could be with independence, ignoring all the other factors that exist. The final details of how the money will reach Scottish farmers are still being worked out, but the outcome may not be as dire as it first appears, as it has been decided by the Scottish Government that about 500,000 hectares on which no agricultural activity occurs will not receive any of the money. This should help those still in active farming.
	Following on from the scene that my noble friend Lord Plumb started with, farming in the UK needs a fresh input of young and talented participants. If the needs of the world are anything to go by, we will find that in future agriculture will be contributing a greater and greater part to the national economy.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, I join the thanks to my noble friend Lord Plumb for securing this afternoon’s debate. As chair of EU Sub-Committee D, which has agriculture within its remit, I appreciate enormously his long experience of both agriculture and Europe and really value his contribution to the work of the committee.
	Many millions of people around the world are hungry. In some places it is because of natural conditions and in others it comes as the price paid by ordinary people for the ambitions and mismanagement of their leaders. Close to home, an estimated 5.6 million people are struggling to afford food. Many more people in this country have plenty to eat but are probably malnourished or on the verge of it because they are consuming food which is high in calories and low in nutrients.
	It seems strange, given that food is essential to life, that we have no strategy for it. It is certainly true that the food sector is heavily regulated. It is not the Wild West out there. Everything from hygiene to labelling and packaging, from competition law to the Groceries Code Adjudicator, is regulating food, but there is no discernable strategic approach to food production and distribution which looks at our food from local, national, European and global perspectives into the future.
	The assumption is that the free market will deliver for us because it is in its interests to ensure that we continue to have easy access to a range of cheap and plentiful food. Retailers have done a great job in providing this. The variety of food on offer has increased enormously in my lifetime, and as the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, noted, we spend significantly less on food than we used to. However, cheap food comes at quite a high price, and the price is often paid by
	growers in developing countries who are tied into unfair contracts and by exploited workers in sectors such as tea and coffee, cashew nuts and prawn fishing. The price is paid in rooted-up rainforest, soil depletion and other environmental degradation. In places, people are going hungry because their land is more profitable to fill our food and energy demands, not their needs.
	This is a matter not for government to address through legislation and regulation, but for retailers and consumers to give much more thought to the impact of their purchasing decisions. I welcome the fact that the major retailers are really starting to focus in on the ethical and environmental consequences of our food consumption.
	Our sub-committee recently carried out an inquiry into food waste. It became evident that much of the problem lies within the nature of the food chain. Farm to fork has become something of a cliché, but long food chains consisting of individual businesses, each of which is concerned with its own bottom line, can result in practices which are bad overall. In the case of food waste, we identified the relationship between supermarkets and growers as a major problem, particularly where cancelled orders and overzealous specification results in growers being left with surpluses of food which they have had to produce to avoid penalty, which has then not been used. Without a market for that food, it gets ploughed back or anaerobically digested.
	Those lengthy food chains are also where safety and verification problems come in. The horsemeat scandal was a real wake-up call both to the public and industry because, as supply chains become longer and extend geographically, the enforcement of regulation becomes harder. Will the Minister update the House on Professor Elliott’s report into food supply networks?
	The sub-committee thought that the Government could do a lot more to understand food chains better and to promote expertise and understanding. Witnesses told us that expertise in food chain management is in short supply, and this is partly why tackling food waste and other issues has become so difficult. It not just retailers. Equally problematic are the large food service companies, which provide meals in our schools, hospitals and prisons, and the hospitality sector.
	One of the issues identified by many witnesses in our food waste inquiry is that people understand food far less well than they used to. In the context of food waste, it means they do not know how to use leftovers, and they do not understand basic facts around the storage of food and particularly when it is safe to eat it. It goes far wider than food waste. Many people do not know how to cook any more, so they spend far more than they need to buying expensive prepared food and take-aways. Ironically, this is hitting the poorest hardest. A recent report from Kellogg’s showed that 45% of children said they do not learn about food at home or at school, although 79% said they would really like to. I would like the Government to give much more thought as to how people can learn about food. Most commentators now agree that, as the global population rises, food will become a much scarcer commodity. With basics such as land and water coming under pressure and the impact of climate
	change and agriculture making dramatic fluctuations more common, basic food security cannot be taken for granted. This is not in the distant future. Asda’s corporate affairs director recently told a conference that 96% of the fresh food that Asda buys is already at risk from changes to weather patterns.
	We need to think long and hard about this. Are we right in our assumption that, somehow, we western countries will continue to take priority in global food markets and that we will have the same access to food? Can we just leave it to supermarkets to ensure plentiful food and, if we do, what is the price we are likely to pay financially, environmentally and socially? We need to consume more food produced closer to home. There are already growing signs of the impact of improving diets of people in China and India. Competition for food is becoming much more of an issue and it is already happening. Parts of the fishing industry in Asia are no longer prepared to supply EU markets because they can easily supply markets closer to home, where the ethical and safety demands are much less stringent.
	For those of us who care about carbon footprints, how do we reduce them when less of our food is being grown close to home? The Government should give a high priority to research in agriculture, working with academia and industry to improve yield, reduce food losses and waste, and improve storage processing and packaging. There are a lot of very valuable partners in the EU, which can build with organisations such as the University of East Anglia, closer to home. I was delighted to see the Prime Minister’s announcement, earlier this week, of a new agricultural research fund and I believe that should focus on yield, food loss and waste and particularly, as the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, and others have described, the question of land stewardship. We need social research to try to understand how best to nudge consumers into making choices which are safe, affordable, healthy and sustainable. A number of noble Lords have talked about the future. The Kellogg’s survey showed that just 1% of the Kellogg’s children wanted to be farmers so where, I wonder, is the next Henry Plumb coming from?

Lord Trees: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to contribute to this debate on agriculture and the food industry, which I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, for initiating. It is on agriculture that I wish to focus.
	Agriculture, as has been said by several noble Lords, contributes hugely to the economy—£9 billion to the UK economy in gross value added—making it one of the biggest manufacturing sectors in our land. Its value, of course, extends much beyond that. It underpins much of the food sector, about which we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, which is worth far more—about £88 billion in gross value added to the economy in 2012. More than that, agriculture is the custodian for most of our land. Some 71% of the land area of the UK is classed as agricultural. Finally, as has been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, agriculture
	provides a substantial part of our food. Some 76% of the food that we could grow in Britain we are growing and providing for the nation. In that respect, it underpins our security, health, and productivity.
	I want to concentrate particularly on livestock production and in that respect I draw attention to my register of interests and my chairmanship of an animal health research institute. Nearly 40% of the total UK land area is classed as permanent grassland, much of it upland and in less favoured areas. This is ideal for raising ruminants, which turn indigestible cellulose in grass into nutritious products that are in high demand nationally and internationally.
	The gross output value for livestock production is estimated at £14.2 billion in the UK in 2013. That makes it a very substantial level of productivity in comparison with other EU member states, as the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, outlined. However, we still have a substantial overall negative balance of payments position for livestock products. This presents a challenge but, coupled with the likely increase in the value of livestock as the result of a rapidly expanding global population which demands more meat and dairy products, it also presents a great opportunity.
	Production of food in the UK is under threat from competing claims for land use within the finite boundaries of our land. There are competing claims for energy production, forestry, transport infrastructure, conservation and so on. In future, land for agriculture and livestock production will reduce.
	None the less, our livestock industry has been very resilient in recent years. Productivity has been more or less maintained and in some cases considerably increased, although the number of animals and holdings has decreased in many cases. For example, in the dairy industry between 1997 and 2005 the size of the dairy herd shrank by 20% but milk production fell by only 2%. This has been achieved partly by fewer but bigger units with concomitant efficiency gains. However, there can be downsides to that. I have not the time to go into them but the pollution and so on will be apparent to your Lordships.
	In terms of increasing efficiency of livestock production, what does not have downsides is improving the health of our herds and flocks. In a given period, disease morbidity impairs productivity but inputs, pollution and greenhouse gas emissions remain more or less the same. Mortality from disease of course stops production from an animal. One loses totally its productive capacity without reducing the inputs and emissions up to the point of death. Improving health can reverse all these negative impacts.
	Investment in disease control and the application of science is essential. Recent initiatives such as the Government’s agritech strategy are very welcome, but overall investment in agricultural research in 2010 was just 5% of the gross value added of the industry. I suggest that that is below the norm for comparable high-tech industries. This investment does not all have to come from the Government of course: industry should contribute. However, given the national importance of food production, the Government have an important part to play.
	It is essential in supporting research investment that we give attention to endemic disease research—those diseases indigenous to the UK which affect livestock every minute of every hour of every day, 365 days a year. They are diseases such as mastitis, lameness, reproductive and parasitic diseases and, of course, TB. It is important that we emphasise research on those endemic diseases as well as protect against incursions of so-called transboundary diseases like foot and mouth. It is also important that we gear incentives to reward health and not disease, and that biosecurity, health planning and disease surveillance—the concepts of protect and prevent—are given appropriate emphasis rather than purely reactive measures. Research into and application of disease prevention measures are the equivalent of insurance. It is tempting to cut back on this, especially when times are hard but, to use a domestic analogy, it is a false economy to cancel one’s household insurance if the house then burns down.
	The reforms of the common agricultural policy, which is set to distribute £15 billion in England alone between 2014 and 2020, give an opportunity to reposition a proportion of funding to support and facilitate farmers to embrace health planning and disease prevention. Maintaining or even improving productivity from fewer animals reduces pollution and reduces inputs in imported feedstuffs and greenhouse gas emissions but increases food security and improves animal welfare. It makes sense to improve animal health and thereby strengthen a sustainable agricultural economy so that it can continue to make such a valuable contribution to the nation’s well-being.

Lord Marlesford: My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow in a debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Plumb. There are very few, if any, Members of this House who are more respected. I declare my interest as a Suffolk farmer and the president of the Suffolk Preservation Society.
	I will start by emphasising the cyclical nature of agriculture. In a sense, one ought almost to go back to where it all started in recent history. After the American Civil War, the railways were built, the middle west was opened up and the great agricultural recession hit Europe in about 1870 and lasted until the First World War. Now British farming is suffering from a fresh turn-down. The best example of prosperity in farming has always been the price of wheat and there have been huge fluctuations in recent years. By 2002 the price of feed wheat had fallen to £60 a tonne. If you adjust for output—4 tonnes rather than 1 tonne before the war—and adjust for inflation, that brings that price down to about £6 a tonne, which is what farmers got during the great agricultural depression of the 1930s. By 2007, the price was up to £120 and in 2012 it touched £200. Since then it has fallen by 38% and today it is under £120 a tonne. Oilseed rape, which is probably the main arable rotation crop, has fallen from just under £400 a tonne to £226 a tonne. That is a reduction of 42%.
	It is hardly necessary to refer to the bad situation that milk producers are in due to the catastrophic fall in milk prices. I was a milk producer until 2004 and I
	got out because of the price. Some small milk producers in the West Country have incomes barely above subsistence level. It is largely due, in a sense, to overproduction because only about 50% of all the milk produced is drunk as liquid milk and the rest has to be used for products. They face keen competition and the price for farmers has now gone down again in the last day or two to only about 30p a litre. Supermarkets are selling it at something like 40p a litre as a loss leader.
	The global milk demand is set to grow and therefore we ought to be well placed to take advantage of it. It needs big investment and the investment must, as others have said, have certainty for 10 or 20 years, otherwise it will not happen. Many people probably regret the passing of the Milk Marketing Board, founded in 1932 by the great Walter Elliot and presided over with distinction by my noble friend Lady O’Cathain, who is sitting in her place. Sadly, it was abolished.
	Returning to wheat, cereal needs have, as the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, said, flatlined over the last 10 years compared with other crops, such as sugar beet, which have shown considerable improvement. Cereal plant breeders have stopped investments. The Government have started to spark investment again with incentives and that must continue because it takes about 20 years to develop a new seed variety that goes on to the field.
	I echo the need for the Government to give much clearer ideas about GM, which must be a big way forward.
	This year there has been a huge increase in herbicide-resistant black grass in wheat. There is a simple remedy for next year. There should be a temporary derogation of the ban on straw burning, which, when properly supervised, is the ideal non-chemical way of clearing the ground of weed seeds and sterilising the soil against many crop diseases. I was on the old Countryside Commission when we recommended it be banned because of abuse by some farmers. In those days the chairman was the brilliant noble Lord, Lord Barber of Tewkesbury. Aged 96, he is still going strong, with all his faculties. I rang him this morning to say that I was going to make the suggestion about black grass and he said, “You have my full endorsement and you can quote that”. My view counts for nothing but I hope the Minister will take that back to the department and make sure that it is looked at properly.
	I also congratulate the Government on taking a firm line against diverting large areas of good agricultural land into solar parks. Again, this is quite relevant to the points made about topsoil. Let me say at once that solar has an important part to play but it should be in industrial areas on industrial buildings—there is plenty on scope—not on good agricultural land. Of course, the economics are too attractive for many farmers to resist. Even with wheat at £200 a tonne and four tonnes to the acre, that is a gross revenue of £800 an acre—out of which you have to grow the stuff. The solar people were offering £1,200 to £1,500 an acre a year, which of course they recouped by adding it on to the electricity bills of everyone. It was a very unsound thing.
	We had a recent case in the village of Hacheston near where I live and farm. There was a proposal for a solar park on 150 acres of good agricultural land on the banks of one of the most sensitive designated landscapes, the Ore River Valley. But after a robust campaign, in which everyone in the local community joined, it was rejected by both the inspector and my right honourable friend Secretary of State Pickles. Now the land will continue to be farmed, as it should be. I will put a plug in for the Suffolk coastal area, which is one of the most important parts of England for the growing of vegetables.
	I will refer also, as others have done, to CAP reform, in particular the greening obligations. All claims on the basic payment scheme on 15 May 2015 have to be “greening-compliant”. However, Defra still has not produced the guidance that is needed. There will be a real worry if it is not produced in time. It is almost too late. Farmers are working blind. Defra has said it will do it by the autumn but that is really too late. If the Ministers have difficulty, let them ask the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who did such a terrific job of getting a grip of Defra when we had the shambles of the Rural Payments Agency.
	I very much regret that we have lost my right honourable friend Owen Paterson as Secretary of State for Defra. He was a super Minister and I am sure his successor will be wonderful. I am very sorry that my noble friend Lord De Mauley is not here. I am not sure that he has his priorities right by being in Scotland but at any rate we should expect him to give a really strong lead to Defra in some of the things that your Lordships’ House can speak about with authority.

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Plumb for securing this debate and giving me the opportunity to talk about a very important aspect of my life and the lives of countless citizens in the country.
	Other noble Lords have talked about the importance of large-scale farming, food production, animal welfare, the greenfield agenda and soil. I have enjoyed and learnt much from these contributions. I will concentrate on the role of the growing number of very successful farmers’ markets. Whether one lives in or near a small market town or in large urban areas, farmers’ or produce markets are a key attraction.
	While unusually spending the weekend in London recently, and looking for something to do on a Sunday, it was suggested that we go to Alexandra Palace for the produce market. It is a splendid market in a lovely setting with many varied and interesting stalls, most of them quite different from the ones I am used to frequenting at home. On a beautiful sunny day, eating our purchased lunch at the top of the hill, the view was stunning. I was delighted to have the opportunity to do that.
	In Somerset we have a wide range of farmers’ markets within easy travelling distance. My favourite is in Crewkerne on the third Saturday of the month. There are numerous stalls offering a wide variety of produce: locally grown vegetables, French-style patisserie
	and cakes, gluten-free flans and pasties, a marvellous fish stall selling Weymouth-caught crabs and lobsters, sea bass and whole haddock, a variety of different cheese stalls and, of course, free-range poultry and carefully reared meat from West Country buffalo, as well as cider, wine, preserves, flowers and plants. These markets provide a vital outlet for growers and producers.
	The stall holders attend a number of produce markets ranging from two a month for the gentleman selling his wife’s homemade chutneys, jams and honey through to Wootton Organic Dairy, whose owners attend 20 markets a month throughout Somerset and Dorset, and Beech Ridge Farm selling free-range ducks and chickens at two to three markets a week for 50 weeks of the year. One gentleman who sells only the most delicious cherries is currently attending five to six markets a week, but his season is extremely limited. For the rest of the year he is an adviser to cider growers.
	That brings me on to the importance of the cider industry to the county. In years gone by, the cider industry and Somerset were synonymous. Then, sadly, cider fell out of public favour and many traditional apple orchards were grubbed up and a number of specialist strains were lost. However, cider is now very much back in favour and many local producers regularly win prizes for their cider at agricultural shows such as the Royal Bath & West Show, which is held outside Shepton Mallet at the end of May each year. If one believes the television adverts, drinking cider will greatly enhance your life. I welcome this turnaround in the cider industry’s fortunes. While touring the stalls last Saturday, I was delighted to talk to the gentleman from Wraxall Wines. He was selling fine white and rosé wine. He attends four markets a month and sells from a shop at the vineyard as well as on the internet. The vineyard is also now benefiting from Waitrose buying his white wine as it adds a range of English wines to its shelves—long may this last.
	As noble Lords can probably tell, I am a great advocate for farmers’ markets. I can buy fresh gluten-free flans which are not available in supermarkets. My husband can buy huge, irregularly shaped scones to have with his tea, and we can then go and have a really nice cup of coffee in a family-run café and have a relaxing catch-up. We and other fans like us support several markets, including that at Montacute House run by the National Trust. Montacute hosts a regular market six times a year, which also encompasses a craft market that is especially popular in the run-up to Christmas.
	Jonathan Hoskins from North Perrott Fruit Farm gave me the background on how farmers’ markets have grown up in the south Somerset area. In 1994, he and other small farmers were looking for an outlet for their produce, so they started a monthly market in Chard, the rationale for holding the market only once a month being to encourage local shops to stock their produce. Over time, the offer has transformed into popular farm shops, with many villages now having a farm shop. Success has grown from the markets and there is a balance to be struck between the farmers’ markets and the farm shops, although farmers’ markets remain an important part of their business. However,
	Mr Hoskins was keen to point out that farms cannot be sustained on farmers’ markets alone and need other outlets for their produce. Previously, he brought only his apples to the markets but has since moved into apple juice. Now his farm sells 40,000 to 50,000 bottles a year. In addition, he runs a very successful nursery and farm shop, which also has a café selling coffee and homemade cakes. The shop also stocks milk, bread and newspapers. These are basically loss leaders, but are of service to the community.
	My research on Saturday showed that, of the 20 stallholders present, six also sold on the internet, either delivering themselves or sending their produce by courier; three also attended events such as the cheese festival in Sturminster Newton; one supplied wholesalers; two supplied local shops; six had their own farm shops; and one, although not having a shop, sold from the farm. Some businesses were small cottage industries; for others, farmers’ markets were the main outlet for their produce, with considerable turnover.
	I hope I have demonstrated in some small way how important farmers’ markets are to local growers and farmers, and to their economic survival. They provide a platform for them to showcase their excellent produce. They bring people together in a busy, vibrant social atmosphere, even when it is snowing and freezing cold. They provide the public with the opportunity to taste and experience really fresh, well reared produce and for the public to realise that food does not just arrive on supermarket shelves in brightly coloured packaging, where it may have been sitting for a little while. I hope the Minister will agree with me that farmers’ markets contribute to the economy, should be supported and are here to stay.

The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I declare my interests as on the register. With other noble Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Plumb for initiating the debate. He rightly said that it followed on well from the previous debate. I add that it also follows on well from a debate we had not so long ago on investment in the rural economy, which is hugely important. In that debate we discussed broadband, which is crucial to the agricultural industry, particularly for those who live in remote, out-of-the-way places.
	I congratulate and thank all our landowners and farmers. Their ability to survive and adapt is extraordinary and quite unlike any other industry. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, who said we need to promote and trumpet our successes and achievements more. Farmers are unable to plan ahead with any certainty. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, said it is a lot down to luck, and how right he is. Noble Lords have mentioned the vagrancies of the weather, not only in this country, but worldwide. If Texas has a terrific harvest this year because the weather has been right, that is going to affect prices here. We also have to consider droughts, floods and the control of water to farmland, which will have to be more strictly controlled for farm use in future.
	Farmers have to put up with price volatility. My noble friend the Duke of Montrose mentioned sheep; I was going to major on the price of wheat, but my noble friend Lord Marlesford has done that for me.
	He quoted the price today of about £120 a tonne for wheat. If he takes the price back to 1999 and brings it forward to what it should be in real terms, the price today ought to be more than £200 a tonne. Farmers are losing out.
	There are low profits in farming. Even in an average year, let alone a bad year, some farmers are earning the equivalent of only two-thirds of the minimum wage. Is my noble friend on the Front Bench content with that situation? Is she really happy that some farmers, who are producing so much for the economy and who keep us alive, receive about two-thirds of the minimum wage? Is my noble friend also happy with the differential between farm gate prices and retail prices? In particular, the price of beef has changed hugely. While retail prices are creeping up, farm gate prices are dropping. What is she going to do to solve that situation?
	The other problem for farmers is that the value of their asset—their land—bears no economic relationship to the return they can get from farming it. There are huge pressures on agricultural land. We cannot make any more of it in the world. There has to be more development and more houses in this country, as we have discussed; agricultural land will have to be taken for that. There will have to be more forestry; agricultural land will have to go for that. There is an increase in use of agricultural land for growing crops that are going to be used for energy rather than for food, yet, as noble Lords have said, the population is rising and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said, the soil structure is a continual worry.
	Perhaps I may ask my noble friend the Minister some more questions about self-sufficiency. It reached a peak of 75% in the early 1990s and has now dropped to about 61%. What figure are the Government happy with? If they are not happy with 61%, what does she think it should be?
	I want to ask her, too, about seasonal workers. This is a huge problem for farmers this year, following the abolition of the seasonal agricultural workers scheme—it will affect my noble friend Lord Selborne in respect of fruit. We are already getting reports that fruit and vegetables are being left unpicked in the fields because there is a shortage of workers. What proposals do the Government have for producing an alternative to the seasonal agricultural workers scheme?
	I turn finally to Scotland. Besides all the difficulties that I have mentioned, farmers have to put up with the biggest menace of all, and that is us—the interfering politicians. First, we have the common agricultural policy. What a disaster that reform has been. It is not helping the farmers and it will not help food production. On a specific point, will my noble friend say that farmers will still be allowed to use paper as input rather than having to rely on broadband, as the regulations seem to demand, particularly when farmers do not have broadband in the more remote rural areas? To have confidence, farmers need stability, yet in Scotland we have the report of the land reform review group being published and proposals on the right to buy.
	Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, could answer the following question. The Scottish National Party and the Labour Party in Scotland have said that
	the direction of travel is a limit on the amount of land that anybody can own, an absolute right to buy for tenants and an ability to purchase land from you if it is in the public interest—and the public interest is, of course, defined by us politicians. If the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, cannot say that the English Labour Party categorically opposes that, we must assume that that will be its policy. It is a terrifying thought.
	On the absolute right to buy for tenants, tenants need to be aware that, as tenants, they are loved. The tenancy is what has allowed farmers and young people to come on to the farming ladder, but the moment they stop being tenants and buy their farm, they will be hated because they will be an owner.

Lord Williams of Elvel: Will the noble Earl give way?

The Earl of Caithness: No, I do not have time. I am sorry; this is a time-limited debate.
	If that person buys another piece of land because it will lead to economies of scale and lower costs, they will be even more hated. To owners, I would say this: do not let any land. But if that is the case, we are undermining what has been the structure of farming and has served this country so well. That will be a threat to our food production and to the British economy.

Lord Curry of Kirkharle: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Plumb. It is not for the first time in my life, but I am particularly grateful to him today for stimulating this critical debate. Without duplicating all that has been said already, I want to emphasise the importance to the UK economy of this vital sector. I declare an interest in that I farm in Northumberland and have a number of other farming and food interests.
	The agrifood industry is the largest contributor to the UK economy by some margin, as has been said already, and it has the potential to contribute even more, both to our balance of payments through increased exports and to local and regional economies through adding value and other diversified activities that can lead to a reduction in dependence on imports.
	We can and should seek to halt the decline in the self-sufficiency of food production that we have witnessed over the past couple of decades or so. While it is virtually impossible to set a self-sufficiency target—I was encouraged to do so in 2001 in a report I was responsible for and resisted the pressure—it is difficult to do so due to the annual influence of weather, volatile commodity prices and currency movements. Nevertheless, we should attempt to provide a higher proportion of our annual consumption than we do at present. Many look back with pride on the early 1990s, when we achieved almost 90% self-sufficiency, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, but they conveniently forget that at that time we were filling intervention stores with piles of surplus food such as beef, milk, and grain, which had been subsidised to produce and was then subsidised again to dispose
	of on to global markets, potentially undermining the fragile economies of the developing world.
	We need to concentrate our efforts on producing food in a sustainable way, as has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords—and I will return to this challenge in a moment—with sustainable markets that address the diverse opportunities that exist both at home and abroad, in local, regional and mainstream markets, through constant innovation and investment. This requires confidence within the food industry that the agrifood sector is still a priority for government. Too often it has been regarded as a mature sector and rather traditional, with newer industries seen as being more sexy and exciting and receiving more attention and support from government, when in fact the evidence suggests that the food sector has a great record of innovation and of responding to changing consumer lifestyles. This important sector needs recognition that it is a priority for investment in skills development and business support and that it has the potential to contribute even more to the economy.
	The challenge of feeding the huge anticipated increase in the global population has been well rehearsed and, despite the fact that we are a relatively small global player, I firmly believe we have a significant contribution to make. In addition to export opportunities, we will have upwards of 70 million people here in Britain to feed from a shrinking land mass, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Trees. It used to be said that an area the size of the Isle of Wight disappears every year in Britain through industrialisation, infrastructure projects and housing development, and it is probably even greater than that today. This continues to take place, not only here in the UK but throughout the developed world and increasingly in the developing world, too. If we add to these factors the impact of more frequent volatile weather conditions disrupting food supplies, then the challenge is multiplied. For a variety of reasons, land capable of food production is decreasing at a significant rate. To add to this dilemma, the intervention by government to incentivise renewable energy production is leading to vast areas of maize being grown to feed anaerobic digesters. In the 2003 EU reform negotiations, we quite rightly took the bold step to decouple financial support from food production in England only to find ourselves now competing with subsidised energy production, which is distorting the market.
	As has been said, we need to maintain our investment in science. Historically, we have had a great track record of contributing to global knowledge in a whole range of science disciplines that have led to improvements in production systems, genetics and standards in both livestock and crops. It is essential that we continue to do this. We now need new tools and new knowledge to be able to respond to the challenges we face more than ever before to produce food in a sustainable way. The agritech strategy, which has been mentioned a number of times, is an important component of this commitment and the Government are to be congratulated for making these funds available. However, this additional expenditure does not restore our historical spend levels, so we cannot be complacent, as the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, said.
	Wearing my hat as chair of the Better Regulation Executive, I feel I should take some responsibility for the decision to discourage the introduction of a soils directive, as referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. I absolutely agree that the quality of our soils is a matter of concern and a priority issue, but we need to look at alternative solutions to solve the problem by the promotion of best practice rather than by even more EU legislation.
	My final concern is that we do not have an overarching strategic plan for the agrifood sector. I absolutely endorse the comments of the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Scott. There is lots of encouraging activity, but there is no glue binding it all together. I find myself involved in a number of important initiatives, but they are taking place in an ad hoc manner without any clear direction, whether it be in providing opportunities for schoolchildren to learn about the countryside, encouraging young people to consider agriculture and the food industry as a career, working with the Farming Help charities—as the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, is doing—or trying to drive forward the science agenda and the extension of knowledge. I find it really encouraging that the industry itself is responding to many of the challenges that we face and is increasingly willing to do so.
	This lack of a strategic plan is particularly important as the local enterprise partnerships assume responsibility for administering funds under Pillar 2 for economic development and rural growth. They clearly need to ensure that funding supports regional priorities, but it must also be consistent with government priorities. I would be interested to hear from the Minister what direction has been given to the LEPs in the absence of an overarching plan.
	On the subject of a plan, it is concerning that we bounce from one CAP reform negotiation to the next. No sooner do we wrestle with the implementation of the latest agreement than we embark on the next. Each reform package gradually reduces the level of support through the single payment scheme. I am fully aware that negotiations within the EU can be very difficult and I know I am asking for the impossible, but we need clarity on the future of direct support. I am meeting an increasing number of young people who believe that the sooner we have a plan with an agreed timescale to remove the single payment scheme, the sooner we can begin to adjust to an industry that is supported by the food and services it provides rather than public intervention. The current process seems to be based on a thousand cuts. We need a plan.

Viscount Ridley: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Plumb and join others in paying tribute to all that he has done and said, not least today. I declare my interest as a farm owner in Northumberland, not very far from the noble Lord, Lord Curry. I am sorry to tell the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, who is not in his place, that the latest text from my combine harvester says that the barley bushel weight is disappointing.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, has detailed, farming is an astonishingly successful industry but it is also countercyclical. It grew throughout the previous recession
	and has often done so. It was an important factor in keeping the economy going that at least one part of it was not badly affected by the great recession. However, we must redouble our efforts in the years to come to keep farming competitive.
	This urgency comes not because the world will necessarily struggle to feed itself, with 2 billion more mouths to feed by 2050, and not necessarily because climate change will make it harder to feed the world. If anything, more rainfall and longer growing seasons mean that we may well see improved yields for some decades. These are not the main, imminent threats. Indeed, if British farmers sit back and think that population growth and climate change will ensure plenty of consumers for their produce, they may be in for a rude shock.
	The world is on the cusp of a great farming transition. From now on, and at an accelerating rate, it is quite possible that we will need less, not more, land globally to feed the world, even as the population grows. My noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer spoke of “peak soil”. I commend the Minister’s attention to a paper by the Rockefeller University’s Professor Jesse Ausubel, Peak Farmland and the Prospect for Land Sparing. Professor Ausubel says that,
	“humanity now stands at Peak Farmland, and the 21st century will see release of vast areas of land, hundreds of millions of hectares, more than twice the area of France for nature”.
	His argument is as follows. At the moment, we are using 65% less land to grow the same quantity of food, averaged over all crops, as we did in 1960. Had we stayed at 1960s yields, would need 3 billion extra hectares to feed today’s population—that is several continents. Yet yields are still going up globally at about 2% a year. If you assume, pessimistically, that that drops to 1.7%, you assume that meat consumption rates grow faster than they are growing at the moment and you assume that population growth falls more slowly than it is falling at the moment—if you make those three conservative assumptions—you still find that we will need 146 million fewer hectares of land in 2060 than we farm today. If you make more realistic assumptions, we will need 256 million fewer hectares to feed the population in 2060 than we need today to feed today’s population. In other words, the world will potentially find it easier and easier to feed itself, which means real competition for British farmers from elsewhere in the world. As for African competition in commodity grains, we still live behind an artificial European tariff wall—an unjustifiable wall, in my view. I commend what the noble Lord, Lord Curry, said about not letting the pursuit of self-sufficiency lead to perverse incentives.
	We should note that whereas yields have quadrupled here since 1950—most wheat yields have gone up about fourfold—and even more than that in Asia and America, they have barely budged in Africa in that period. If Africa gets hold of fertiliser, as it will—it is doing so—world food production will soar. In short, we will need to plan for a very competitive future, with potentially low commodity prices and high yields. This could be an underestimate of how much land could be released from farming. If climate change enhances rainfall and lengthens growing seasons; if hydroponic irrigation gets going with cheap desalination,
	so that many desert countries can grow plenty more food; if the productivity of chickens, pigs and other livestock, as mentioned by my noble friend the Duke of Montrose, continues to increase; and if landless agriculture—that is to say, tissue engineering and 3D printing to make meat, although I am sorry to say that that is competition for wonderful Scottish sheep—all bets could be off in terms of how much less land could be needed.
	Even without any of these new technologies, we will need less land. That reality has been concealed in recent years by what is little more than a scandal of biofuels. We have been turning 5% of the world’s grain crop into motor fuel. We have displaced just 6% of the world’s oil use, so the impact on oil use has been trivial, but it has had an impact on food prices none the less. When that madness stops, as it will, the extent to which the world needs less land to feed itself may well be revealed.
	What does that mean for British agriculture? It means three things. First, we must press on with innovation. Yields have stagnated over the past 10 years in this country, as a number of noble Lords have said. We must rebuild the research base, as the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, said, and grasp the nettle of genetic modification, as the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, said. I hope that the Minister will confirm the Government’s continuing support for genetic modification, particularly things such as nitrogen-use efficiency, which would decrease the amount of fertiliser needed to support a particular level of yield. We must redouble work on diseases, as the noble Lord, Lord Trees, said, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, said, we need to tackle the crisis in crop protection. It is a genuine crisis, with black-grass, yellow rust and these other problems, which are harder and harder to deal with. The precautionary approach that dominates the development of crop protection chemicals in the European Union has been disastrous in terms of allowing us to develop new and environmentally more friendly products.
	Secondly, we need to switch our efforts to quality not quantity of food, with nutrient-enhanced varieties with Omega-3 amino acids and lysine-enhanced varieties of specialist crops. As the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, said, we need to link the health agenda to the food agenda.
	Thirdly, and finally, we need to add value and move up the processing chain. Those are the things that will keep British agriculture competitive. Yet the opportunities for Britain are surely great, because Mother Nature has given us day length that the Spanish would die for; soil moisture that a farmer in Kansas would kill for; access to markets that most Africans cannot dream of; and mild winters that Canadians would greatly envy. The Canadian crop is possibly down by as much as 26% this year, I am told, which is partly because of the harsh winter they experienced.
	One Lincolnshire farmer by the name of Tim Lamyman comes very close every year to beating the world record wheat yield, set in New Zealand some years ago, of 15.6 tonnes per hectare. He claims that if he was given unlimited use of nitrogen, he would get there. That is the potential of this wonderful country.

Lord Grantchester: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, for introducing our debate today and pay tribute to his continuing championing of agriculture. I declare my interests in a commercial dairy farm in Cheshire in receipt of EU funds and my life-long experience of co-operating with other farms and farmers in the food chain. In that regard, I chaired Dairy Farmers of Britain, which managed liquid dairies and an ingredients factory as well as engaging in hard and soft cheese manufacturing.
	Through the reduction of international trade barriers, agriculture now has to have a global outlook, and we must be aware of the different perspectives that this can bring. From the top down, we have to be concerned with the health of the population, bearing in mind the modern challenges of obesity and climate change. However, when we look up from the agricultural perspective, the industry can seem very different when farmers recognise the headlock that they can often be in in the food chain, continually seeking to resist pricing to the marginal unit of production, which drives farming policy and outcomes without regard to profit as a return on risk and investment. It is a challenge to the future to drive down unit costs of production and the constant restructuring of the supply chain.
	We on this side of the House are very aware of the importance of joined-up food policy. It is disappointing that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, is not in his place today. However, the noble Lord, Lord Curry, has pointed out the need for rural proofing and getting an integration of policies on the rural economy from Defra, BIS, CLG and even the Home Office. That is why, in government, the Labour Government published Food 2030, a comprehensive vision for a sustainable and secure food system for 2030.
	I thank the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, for his introduction to the debate today. He and other noble Lords have highlighted the importance and value of agriculture in the UK economy. Food is indeed the biggest manufacturing sector in the UK. It employs 3.7 million people in a huge range of businesses from farms to retail. That is equivalent to 14% of all GB employment. Agriculture and food processing is worth more than £80 billion to the UK economy and is our largest manufacturing sector.
	The noble Lords, Lord Palmer and Lord Marlesford, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, highlighted the changes in food production over the years. The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, drew attention to the importance of research to the future development of agriculture and its effects on the environment. He also mentioned the importance of work on nutrition, a key aspect of the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, drew attention to the fragility of the environment and the importance of soil structures. The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, highlighted the importance of agriculture to the drinks sector and in developing international trade, while the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, extolled the virtues of farmers markets.
	However, agriculture is not one trade, but rather is made up of different sectors, often competing against each other for space on the supermarket shelf and
	often concentrated in different parts of the UK. The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, drew attention to the consequences of this practice.
	I resist the challenge to take a diversion in my remarks to answer at length the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. However, I will speak of Labour’s approach to agriculture and the food chain, which is focused on several key areas. The first is the importance of skills. Improving skills and competitiveness is a central aspect of a sustainable food and agricultural industry. There is a growing need to educate farmers with business skills. Have the Government given any thought to how they might take forward the work of the food and farming partnerships set up under the previous Labour Administration? The farming industry faces particular challenges in maintaining and building its skills base, innovating to stay profitable and attracting new entrants to the sector.
	We must also help diversification across the rural economy and up the food chain and be aware of the effects of planning and the tax regime, whereby farm shops are often considered on a separate basis from the capital structure of agriculture. At the root of sustainability is the creation of a more highly skilled workforce and better paid jobs. A key element of Labour’s Agenda 2030, our long-term strategy to earn and grow our way to a higher standard of living—a priority of the next Labour Government—is to invest in the quantity and quality of apprenticeships. We will strengthen and develop a manufacturing supply chain to boost productivity and raise living standards. The long supply chain in the food chain sector is a very important aspect that we need to recognise, as we should the input provided by the FDF paper, Ingredients for Success.
	Another key area on which our approach is focused concerns that of the United Kingdom’s place in the EU. At home, the impact of the challenge of the cost of living crisis is especially crucial for the wider population. Returns are being focused not only in the top companies but on the top management of those companies. A balance needs to be struck in focusing the returns throughout the industry and across the companies in the food chain. The challenges thrown up by the increasing use of food banks need to be understood and met. The Government, industry and stakeholders must work together to ensure that food is available and accessible by reducing market volatility and ensuring that our national, regional and international trading systems work effectively.
	It is vital that we remain a key member of a reformed European Union and pay attention to the impact of the CAP on agriculture. The UK food industry is highly integrated into that of the rest of the EU. It is crucial that Britain remains in the EU to benefit from better access to markets. The EU is also leading the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership to ensure that we can open up the US market, especially to European beef. The EU has free trade agreements with a number of emerging economies, including Chile, South Korea, Mexico and South Africa. Will the Minister tell the House why the Conservative Party would risk threatening this hugely important industry by leaving the EU?
	The third aspect on which I wish to concentrate is food. In this regard the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, highlighted the importance of nutritional quality. Other
	issues raised today include food security, which the noble Lord, Lord Curry, mentioned. The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, spoke about GM food and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, spoke about the lack of a coherent food policy and the lack of attention given to ethical concerns. I shall highlight food safety.
	Food security needs to remain a central priority for the entire food system, protecting the health of consumers and their safety from disease and contamination. The challenges that this throws up include maintaining investment in animal livestock health and being aware of diseases crossing over into the wild population and, indeed, into the human population through zoonosis. I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Trees, mentioned that issue. Under the Tory-led Government the horsemeat scandal severely damaged the consumer’s confidence in the industry, and we must fix that urgently.
	The Elliott review into the integrity and assurance of food supply networksis a crucial part of restoring that trust. The final report was due to be published this week. Can the Minister explain why this important report has been further delayed? The continuing delay and obfuscation by Defra Ministers is damaging the process. We already have the interim report. As Parliament is now rising, will we have a further three months to debate the report? Given that the food and agriculture industry is so valuable to the British economy, the Government’s continued delay, by not publishing the report, is bad for the food industry and bad for consumers. Consumers deserve better and Ministers must take account of this report.
	The fourth aspect that I will focus on is the CAP and its reform equitably throughout the European Union, bearing in mind integration with other land uses and, by the same token, the importance of the value of food-producing land in the equation. Food must be produced in a way that is environmentally sustainable or we will create problems for the long term. We always need to be aware of the need to feed a growing world population in a way that does not degrade natural resources on which farming and food production ultimately depend. Labour wants to see reform of the CAP based on clear principles. It should enable farmers to thrive in a liberalised global market without the need for subsidies across the UK, bearing in mind the challenges that this will bring to the food sector to deliver returns to primary production—that is, agriculture. It should ensure that funding is used to support environmental and other public investments, including supporting rural communities. It should demonstrate that the payment is a genuine public good, and value for money. It should create a level playing field with other EU member states and does not disadvantage other UK farmers.
	The public want real and transparent value for the money that they pay out each year, and fairness for this in future generations. Does the Minister join Labour in supporting a fair distribution of returns from taxpayers and the market in an overall sense to encourage agricultural innovation and improved profitability? Agriculture is very resilient but needs to have its voice heard and reflected in public policy.

Baroness Northover: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Plumb for calling this important debate, not least because it enables us to emphasise the huge contribution that our farmers and those in our food industry make to the economy. I feel immensely privileged to be answering the noble Lord. This is my opportunity to tell him that, when I was young, I recall my father, a tenant farmer, speaking in awed and hushed terms of the noble Lord when he was vice-president, then president, of the NFU. My parents felt that here was a true champion of what they were doing. They felt valued as they sought to make a living out of difficult hill-top land, the fertile valleys being occupied by a golf course, which my father longed to plough up. They worked against the odds in food production in dairy, beef, sheep and arable, training me and my siblings as expert sheep-dogs, bale movers and—I address this to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford —straw burners. The noble Lord, Lord Plumb, said that farming is not for the faint-hearted; he is so right. I also know how important the agricultural industry is to our own food security and what we can contribute, given the huge global need that my noble friend Lady Parminter and others pointed to.
	The UK agri-food chain, from the farm to the retailer to the caterer, is estimated to be worth £97 billion. Our world-class food and drink manufacturing and retail sectors supply consumers both in the United Kingdom and abroad. The food supply chain employs some 3.7 million people. Food and drink is the country’s largest manufacturing sector, contributing £24 billion to the economy and employing 370,000 people. British food and drink has an excellent reputation for its high standards and rigorous traceability, as well as the strong environmental and animal welfare standards that are valued by consumers across the world.
	We have a rising UK and global population, and demand for British produce is increasing. At the same time, for the types of food that we can produce in this country, we import 31% of what we eat. Consumers care increasingly about the origin of their food, thus offering the chance for UK producers to increase their share of the domestic market. We want to provide the right conditions for UK producers to take advantage of these opportunities now, in the face of increasingly fierce international competition.
	Both the agriculture and food sectors have their challenges. Our rate of agricultural productivity growth has lagged in recent decades relative to some of our key competitors such as the USA, Denmark, Ireland and the Netherlands. Various noble Lords referred to this. We therefore need to increase our rate of agricultural productivity but, as my noble friends Lord Selborne and Lady Parminter emphasised, we need to ensure that we do it sustainably, to ensure that we can go on competing in the global market.
	My noble friend Lord Plumb is absolutely right about the need for research to underpin agriculture. After all, it was in the United Kingdom that the agricultural revolution started, which transformed agriculture in Britain and around the world. That combines now have eight computers demonstrates the complete variance from my father’s battered old combine.
	Only his engineering skills kept it going and, when it was finally sold, it was bought by a collector. It is right that science and research must underpin the agriculture industry. As my noble friend Lord Selborne emphasised, this is the key. That is why we have brought forward the agri-tech strategy, which was mentioned by many noble Lords.
	However, as my noble friend Lord Selborne and the noble Lord, Lord Curry, pointed out, we cannot be complacent. The strategy was launched to support the agri-food sector, providing the UK food and farming industry with opportunities to increase productivity, grow the economy and give UK businesses a competitive edge both here and overseas. The Government are investing £160 million through the strategy, as noble Lords have noted, in projects that will, for example, establish centres of agricultural innovation. The strategy also calls for a joined-up, industry-led approach to improving skills in the agri-tech sector. My noble friend Lord Selborne emphasised the importance of linking this to farming practices. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister announced funding of £18 million from government and industry for 15 agri-tech catalyst projects on 21 July so that they can become commercially viable.
	We have a long record of innovation in farming in this country. However, in recent decades, as I mentioned, our productivity has not grown as fast as that of some of our competitors. The strategy is designed to help tackle this by supporting the transfer of innovation to the farm. There is huge potential from breakthroughs in areas such as plant and animal breeding and in the application of technologies such as the satellite imaging mentioned by my noble friend Lord Plumb in terms of their effect on agriculture—my father would have been stunned to hear my noble friend say the things he did. The aim of the agri-tech strategy is to ensure that we make the most of these opportunities. The noble Lord, Lord Trees, rightly emphasised that animal health is relevant in this area. I am sure that he knows, but I would point out to him that the new catalyst projects announced on Monday 21 July included one for technology automatically to monitor pigs for early detection of health and welfare issues.
	Many issues came up that show the need for a research base in agriculture. The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, and my noble friend Lord Ridley mentioned GM. At an Environmental Council last month, there was overwhelming support for the proposal that will allow member states and the devolved Administrations more choice on whether to cultivate GM crops. The next stage is to agree this proposal with the European Parliament, and these negotiations could conclude later this year or next year. If adopted, it will be a few years before GM crops are grown commercially in the United Kingdom but, earlier this month, an EFRA Committee report on food security recognised the benefits of GM technology and supported the UK’s efforts to make the approval process operate more effectively.
	My noble friend the Duke of Montrose asked a very specific question on sheep carcasses. I can let him know that the EU Commission is looking into this, but that is at a very early stage, and we note what he says.
	My noble friend Lord Marlesford mentioned herbicide-resistant black-grass in wheat. We recognise that this is a serious issue, and we will look carefully at this problem.
	British food and drink is known the world over for its quality, and our food and drink industry is a success story both at home and internationally. Since 2010, we have seen exports increase by £1.2 billion to reach an impressive £18.9 billion in 2013. Increasing exports provide an excellent opportunity for the sector to grow even further as well as to become more resilient and more profitable. With surging global population growth and demand for western products increasing worldwide, there has never been a better time to pursue food and drink export opportunities. That is why I can assure noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, that promoting food and drink exports is a key government priority. To help grasp these opportunities, Defra and UKTI launched the UK food and drink export action plan. This details the Government’s commitment to champion UK food and drink overseas, break down trade barriers and open up new international markets for our produce.
	Last year, the United Kingdom exported food and drink to the value of £18.9 billion, as I mentioned. There is room to increase this even further, particularly in emerging markets. The export action plan outlines an ambitious target, jointly agreed by government and industry, to add £500 million to the UK economy by helping 1,000 UK food and drink companies with their international growth up until October 2015. The plan also details government and industry’s commitment to work together to champion UK food and drink overseas, open up new markets, overcome barriers to trade and simplify and improve support and trade procedures for exporters.
	Back home in the UK, both agriculture and food manufacturing face another challenge: the skills gap. Various noble Lords referred to this. This affects innovation and profitability. The Food and Drink Federation anticipates that 137,000 new employees are required in food manufacturing by 2017 to meet its ambition to grow sustainably by 20% by 2020, and 45,000 of these will be needed in management roles and professional jobs. The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, mentioned apprenticeships. The Government are supporting the food industry’s work on creating a number of career pathways for young people. These include the BIS-led reforms to ensure that apprenticeships are even more rigorous and responsive to employers’ needs and the development of the UK’s first food engineering degree at Sheffield Hallam University.
	The future agricultural workforce is a vital part of meeting the challenge of global food security. We are currently addressing a number of the findings of the Future of Farming Review, which industry and Government worked on together, to look strategically at the opportunities and barriers encountered by those making a career in farming.
	My noble friend Lord Caithness mentioned various challenges, including poor pay and poor prices. They are clearly important factors. He will be pleased to know that we held a beef industry summit on 1 July, bringing together all parties in the supply chain to
	discuss the fall in beef prices. My noble friend Lord Marlesford mentioned milk prices. There were record milk prices in 2013, and they have remained high in 2014. When I hear about various variables, it takes me back to my father’s view of why he needed a mixed farm, not only for the preservation of the soil, but because he never knew which bit of it might be profitable at any time. Sheep would be losing money, arable would be neutral, but a third area—let us say beef—might be making a little. He never knew which it would be and which would be losing.
	My noble friend Lord Caithness also mentioned seasonal agricultural workers. We understand the concerns over the availability of seasonal workers. We have established an industry-government working group bringing together growers, labour providers and relevant government departments. We are pleased that Jobcentre Plus has shared its experience in helping with temporary recruitment in the relevant industries and it is now working with the agricultural sector. It is worth bearing in mind that, on average, UK farmers enjoy higher incomes than others in the EU but we fully realise that that varies by sector. Seeing the variability plays an important role in recruitment into the industry.
	My noble friend Lord Plumb is right to emphasise the importance of colleges and to note the encouraging increase in competition for places, which indicates the health of the industry. As part of CAP reform, we are developing a new rural development programme and have dedicated £140 million to farming growth and productivity, with particular attention to how to support new entrants and those developing their businesses in the early years, to pick up on a point that the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria made. He also asked more generally about the CAP, as did the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, who emphasised the importance of the EU market and its influence in other markets. He is, of course, absolutely right about that. I remind him, as my noble friend Lady Warsi so often does, that the Prime Minister has made it very clear that he does not intend to leave the EU.
	Our approach to implementing the new CAP in England is aimed at minimising the burdens on farmers while delivering value for taxpayers and improving our natural environment. Within a smaller overall EU budget, English farmers will benefit from £15 billion of funds over the next CAP period and we will invest at least £3.5 billion in rural development schemes. A bigger share of the rural development budget will be spent on the environment than ever before—87% compared with 83%. I point out to my noble friend Lord Caithness, that we aim to have an IT system that is simple, affordable and effective, but assistance will be provided for those who genuinely cannot or do not get online, ensuring that farmers and their advisers have access to the guidance they need. What he said rather rang true.
	We should acknowledge that agriculture’s contribution to our economy is not just about production. Significant economic and social benefits are provided directly to local economies and communities. We heard some wonderful examples from my noble friend Lady Bakewell, on farmers’ markets. It was lovely to have that as a contribution to the debate. My noble friend Lady Scott
	made the important point that the Government need to do much more to educate people about food and where it comes from as part of the wider context. She will probably know that Defra sponsors Open Farm Sunday, which is held every June and sees more than 200,000 people go to farms to see where food comes from. Natural England has set up educational access agreements with farmers, which help them host educational farming visits. Quite a lot of work is going on but I am sure that more could be done and I know that children enjoy that immensely.
	As I have indicated, agricultural and food industries are not without challenges. Noble Lords will be aware of the increasing demands on our land. Defra has helped to fund a project by the University of Cambridge—a sustainability leaders’ platform—which clearly outlines the calls on land, including those from food, fuel and housing. The Government are currently discussing how policies that can have an impact on land interact so that the best outcome is achieved. My noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer spoke passionately about the need for us to steward our soils. She is absolutely right. We fully recognise the importance of soil and its essential role, including in food production, carbon storage and flood protection. The ambition expressed in the Natural Environment White Paper was that all soils should be managed sustainably by 2030. New national standards to limit erosion, protect soil organic matter and maintain soil cover will be in place from 2015. I hope my noble friend is reassured by that.
	On Monday 21 July, Peter Bonfield’s report, A Plan for Public Procurement, was published. My noble friend Lady Parminter referred to what she found within that and what she wished might have been in it. In the report, my right honourable friend Elizabeth Truss, the Secretary of State for Defra, stated that the plan will create £400 million of new business opportunities for the British food industry. From 2017 all of central government will commit to buying fresh, locally sourced, seasonal food so that all food that can be bought locally will be.
	My noble friend Lady Parminter spoke about the Green Food Project. The noble Lord, Lord Curry, and my noble friend Lord Ridley also spoke about this in a strategic context. We are committed to supporting growth and increased competiveness in the food and farming industry. We are working in partnership with industry to focus on priority areas for action, including through the areas I already outlined. We want a healthy and resilient farming industry that contributes to our food security. I assure noble Lords that we have looked at how this also serves to enhance the environment and reconcile any tensions there might be within that. The research and technology we are investing in will also, we hope, help contribute to that.
	There are various other things that I might need to reply to in a letter, I am afraid, given the time.

Lord Grantchester: Since the Recess is approaching, could the noble Baroness say anything about the Elliott review?

Baroness Northover: Yes, we are considering Professor Elliott’s interim recommendations and will respond to his final report, which will be published shortly. I am
	sure that the noble Lord will enjoy reading it as he lies on the beach somewhere or other. The professor’s interim report recognises that UK consumers have access to some of the safest food in the world. This record must not be undermined by criminals. We should pride ourselves on our record in this area, built upon the work of a number of Governments successively. I am sure that we will all look forward to debating the report when it comes out in its final form in due course.
	This has been a wide-ranging and thoughtful debate, reflecting the huge expertise among its participants. We fully share noble Lords’ sense of the key importance of British agriculture, both for own food security and for our potential contribution worldwide. That is why we support the range of research, investment and other areas that we do.

Lord Plumb: My Lords, we have a lot of food for thought that I hope will lead to action. This afternoon, I felt a bit like the father figure with a team—what a team. I thank all noble Lords for the contributions they made. It makes a difference. The Minister brilliantly summed up the whole of the proceedings. She reminded us that farming is very much a family business. This afternoon, during the whole of the debate, my wife sat there. She used to travel with me to various places in the world as we considered farming matters. She sat there through the whole of the debate this afternoon. I am amazed that she stayed all that time. On our way home, I have no doubt that, one by one, we shall consider what was said—and how—during the afternoon. I thank all noble Lords for a wonderful debate and beg to move.
	Motion agreed.

European Union Committee: Report on 2013-14 (EUC Report)
	 — 
	Motion to Take Note

Moved by Lord Boswell of Aynho
	To move that this House takes note of the report of the European Union Committee on 2013-14 (1st Report, HL Paper 6)

Lord Boswell of Aynho: My Lords, the report on the 2013-14 Session details the work of your Lordships’ European Union Committee, which I have the privilege of chairing. I am pleased to be discussing the work of our committee on the Floor of the House, especially as the committee has just passed the significant milestone of its 40th anniversary. I note that the late Lord Diamond—the first chairman of the Select Committee—when reporting to the House in 1974 on the first three months of its work and its members’ contribution thereto, stated that,
	“your Lordships’ House is a veritable storehouse of wisdom, skills, and talents of a kind unimaginable”.—[ Official Report , 7/11/74; col. 600.]
	I can report with some confidence that that is still the case some four decades on. I personally express the debt of gratitude that I owe to members of the committee
	and the sub-committees, who contributed their skills and talents to our work over the past Session, and to those who continue to do so in this one. Alongside them I add the names of their admirable and expert staff, to whom we are very grateful.
	The committee’s role is to scrutinise EU policies and proposed EU laws, seeking to influence their development, to hold the Government to account for their actions in and connected to the EU, and to represent the House in its dealings with the EU institutions, other member states and their national parliaments. Many will know that the bulk of that work is done by six sub-committees.
	The Select Committee itself and its sub-committees have undertaken an extraordinary level of work this year. We have scrutinised more than 250 EU documents and proposals, and corresponded at length with Minsters in order to examine the Government’s position and to put forward the committee’s own view. We have published 14 substantive reports on a diverse range of topics. While our primary task is to inform the House as a whole, we also engage actively with the outside world. I was gratified that the Financial Times described the committee’s reports as,
	“the sort of calm, balanced report that ought to inform public debate”.
	The Select Committee itself regularly conducts one-off hearings with the Minister for Europe, as well as with other key figures. The committee’s main focus in the year in question was our inquiry into the role of national parliaments in the EU. We emphasised national parliaments as a vital source of democratic legitimacy across the EU and supported the case for greater co-operation between national parliaments and early engagement by them with the EU Commission and other European institutions, including the European Parliament, so as to maximise their joint influence.
	I will not rehearse our arguments in detail since there will be a full debate on the report in due course. I welcome the fact that although the Government’s response was late, it has now been received and it appears extremely positive. We look forward to pressing on with our efforts to promote the role of national parliaments by a range of means in the coming months.
	I turn now to the sub-committees. They have all undertaken a range of important work, but I have only time to highlight a few key points for each. The Economic and Financial Affairs sub-committee examined in detail the financial transaction tax proposal and genuine economic and monetary union and its implications for the UK, and published substantive reports on both policy areas. This sub-committee produced an innovative report on the euro area crisis, incorporating the outputs of a series of six-monthly mini- inquiries, by which they have followed the crisis blow by blow for two years. The sub-committee did excellent work in its scrutiny of the 2014 EU annual budget and of the European semester—the term for the cycle of economic and fiscal policy co-ordination within the EU—which all amounts to a wide range of other scrutiny work.
	The Internal Markets, Infrastructure and Employment sub-committee undertook an important inquiry into the issue of youth unemployment in the EU. That is a
	pressing issue affecting the UK and all member states. Its report recognised that,
	“the responsibility for dealing with youth unemployment rests primarily with Member States”,
	and that the key measures to address the issue should be concentrated and implemented at national level. But it was a timely and considered contribution to an EU-wide issue that will require attention for a long time to come, sadly.
	The Sub-Committee on External Affairs was typically busy, dealing with a wide range of issues on foreign affairs, development, defence and international trade. In particular, it conducted an exhaustive inquiry into the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership—TTIP—in prospect between the USA and the European Union. This report concluded that as,
	“the most ambitious trade and investment pact ever attempted”,
	TTIP could,
	“set the template for a new generation of 21st century trade and investment agreements”.
	We urge member states to promote the TTIP initiative and to address public concerns over the prospect of a deal. The United Kingdom Government should seek to explain how TTIP is relevant, not just to large multinational companies but to consumers and small businesses. TTIP negotiations continue and we will follow developments with interest.
	The Sub-Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries, Environment and Energy undertook an inquiry into food waste prevention in the European Union, which attracted a significant and thoroughly well deserved amount of media and public attention. This report called for greater collaboration and shared financial responsibility along the supply chain so that, for example, retailers work more closely with farmers and consumers to reduce food waste. It also called for the Government and the European Commission to assess how the redistribution of unsold food for human consumption might be encouraged through appropriate fiscal incentives. The report’s impact is only just beginning to be felt but it will, we are sure, continue to inform and influence public debate.
	The Justice, Institutions and Consumer Protection Sub-Committee presented a reasoned opinion challenging the proposal to establish the European Public Prosecutor’s Office on grounds of subsidiarity. This opinion was agreed by the House on 28 October last year. The committee considered that the EPPO, as proposed by the Commission, would create,
	“a very significant and disruptive incursion into the sensitive criminal law systems of the Member States”.
	The sub-committee continues to examine the impact the EPPO will have on the United Kingdom.
	The sub-committee also conducted a joint follow-up inquiry with the Home Affairs, Health and Education Sub-Committee on the UK’s block opt-out decision relating to pre-Lisbon police and criminal justice measures. This issue was debated last week on the Floor of the House and will be revisited again before the final decision is made by the Government. Both sub-committees maintain a keen interest in this.
	Separately, the Home Affairs, Health and Education Sub-Committee examined the strategic guidelines for the European Union’s next justice and home affairs programme, concluding that,
	“evaluation must be at the heart of the next programme”,
	and recommending reviews of,
	“efficacy, transposition and implementation of all existing JHA legislation”.
	The committee urged that,
	“robust mechanisms must be put in place to review any future legislation or activities”.
	This inquiry is a clear demonstration of the technical and considered contribution that the committee is in a position to make and in which it leads the debate, for which it is held in such high regard in Europe.
	At this point I record personally my particular thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, who chaired the home affairs sub-committee so authoritatively. I welcome and look forward to working with his successor, the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar.
	The work of the European Union Committee and its sub-committees depends on the necessary information being provided in a timely manner by Her Majesty’s Government in accordance with their obligations to Parliament. I have to give one bit of good news, which is that the provision of this information has noticeably improved and the number of scrutiny overrides continues to fall. However, the quality of the explanatory memoranda can still vary across departments. This element of inconsistency can cause issues for the work of the committees if it raises more questions than it is meant to answer. Explanatory memoranda have a duty to explain.
	Our committees also continue to make a significant contribution to interparliamentary relations and work. Some of the work is undertaken through the Conference of Parliamentary Committees for Union Affairs of Parliaments of the European Union, known by the not particularly easy acronym as COSAC. It is certainly not a perfect institution and it does have issues that need to be addressed, but it provides the best framework for formal interparliamentary co-operation. Meanwhile, and less formally, our excellent national parliament representative in Brussels provides help to colleagues and other Members of the House to build effective relationships with other national parliaments and parliamentarians. We have increasingly close relations with like-minded members of committees in a number of other national parliaments. We benefit from a strong working relationship with the chair of the European Scrutiny Committee in another place as well as with those of the devolved Administrations. We meet formally twice a year and informally far more often.
	To conclude, the pace of work has not dropped off. The sub-committees are looking forward and launching inquiries into topics such as regulatory reform, the use of civilian drones, the relationship between Russia and the EU, regional maritime strategy, the Government’s policy in opting into international agreements in the area of freedom, security and justice and, finally, an alcohol strategy. A short and very timely report on European Union data protection law, the so-called “right to be forgotten”, will be published next week.
	At the same time, our regular scrutiny work continues week on week. There is also a significant amount of institutional change in the European Union—a change of face and perhaps a change of style—and we will seek to build on our relationships with the institutions and individuals over the coming Session.
	This House is known for keeping an eye on the small print, and that meticulous approach is never more apparent than in the way the committee tackles European Union affairs. We seek at all times, and I think we generally succeed, without closed minds and without complacency, to act in a non-partisan way and to give, as we are required to, well informed and neutral advice to the House on European Union matters. It is not always easy for us to perform and to communicate that vital function, and frankly it will not become any easier as we approach the 2015 election and whatever lies beyond, but I take great pride in heading this team of European Union committees. With those comments, I commend to the House our report on the work of the 2013-14 Session.

Lord Tugendhat: My Lords, as the first speaker after the presentation of the report by the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, I would like to say a few words in praise of him. Being the chairman of this committee is a very formidable undertaking. It means being the ringmaster of a multi-ring circus, but he manages to pay equal attention, as far as I can see, to the work of all the various sub-committees. He says that most of the work of the committee is done by the sub-committees, which certainly may be true, but he is involved in all of them, and that is a very considerable burden.
	I also pay tribute to one particular report produced by the main European Union Committee, and that is the report entitled, The Role of National Parliaments in the European Union. Not only was it a very good report, but it is a timely issue and something which the whole European Union would do well to study and consider. I think that, to some extent, we can fairly claim to have been the thought leader in that respect. It has also had the very beneficial spin-off of enabling us to get closer to a number of other parliaments, as well as to the European Parliament. That too has been a great advantage.
	I speak as chairman of Sub-Committee C, which deals with external affairs. The noble Lord, Lord Boswell, has already mentioned much of what we do, so I can be very brief. Our main task has, of course, been our report on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, which is the most ambitious undertaking of its kind the world has ever seen and one with enormous potential to benefit economic growth on both sides of the Atlantic. I have been very gratified by the response of both of this House and of the Government; my committee shares that view. The report was debated very shortly after its publication on the Floor of the House and the Minister on that occasion provided a very full response to our debate on behalf of the Government. As he is the noble Lord, Lord Livingston of Parkhead, I hope he is enjoying all the activities currently taking place at Parkhead. In both that response and the Government’s formal written response, which arrived last week, we have
	been very gratified by the extent to which the Government have accepted our proposals and agreed with our recommendations. I will not go into detail, but basically they have accepted pretty much all of them in a very comprehensive and considered reply.
	I want to make only one comment, or caveat, perhaps. While I am very pleased that the Government accept our need for a more positive, cross-departmental communications strategy, I should like to see rather more evidence of that being brought into effect. The debate on TTIP is quite an uphill task in this country, but more particularly in some others, such as the United States, France and Germany. The Government’s support for a more vigorous strategy is certainly very welcome and I look forward to its being put into effect.
	I also pay tribute to the Commission. We were very impressed by both Commissioner De Gucht and the negotiator, Mr Garcia Bercero. The openness with which the Commission conducts this negotiation, and the way in which it seeks to remain in contact with interested parties in the member states, is very impressive. Given the size of the European Union now, that in itself is an achievement. Of course, we do not know who Commissioner De Gucht’s successor will be, but it is one of the most important portfolios in the Commission. I hope a heavyweight and well qualified Commissioner will be put in charge of that portfolio in the Juncker Commission.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, said, we have now embarked on a study into EU-Russia relations. We are at only the very earliest stages and would be hard-pressed to finish it in the time available, given the length of the Recess and the need to finish early in the new year. However, I can already say we are very concerned by the EU’s lack of shared analysis and common purpose and its inability to reach timely agreement on responses and objectives. We intend to come up with proposals to address these issues after taking evidence not just in this country and from other member states in the Commission, but in Russia, we hope.
	In connection with that, we believe it is very important to secure and convey, in our report, a better understanding of how Russia sees its relationship with Europe and how it thinks that might be put on a better footing. We will focus on what happens in the EU, but it is very important that we should hear what the Russians have to say and form a judgment on the approach that they take. We will also consider the EU’s relations with those other states that lie between us and Russia which need to have a good relationship with Russia but which certainly need to have a good relationship with the EU.
	Finally, I want to say how much we appreciate the help that we have received throughout the year from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. By that, I mean not just from officials in London but, in the course of our travels, from posts in Brussels and Washington. We have received great assistance of a practical nature. I am certainly conscious of the fact that, given the enormous number of documents that are processed, the speed with which we have, generally speaking, received responses has been impressive.
	I raise just one caveat. I think that sometimes the Foreign Office—and this is obviously a matter for Ministers rather than for officials—is reluctant to
	allow officials to speak on the record. I can understand why that should be, because the matters are often delicate and often controversial. It is very helpful for the committee to receive off-the-record briefings, which are frequently very interesting and perhaps sometimes more interesting than on-the-record evidence, but when we are producing reports, we can take account only of what we hear on the record. Sometimes it would be helpful for gaining a better understanding of the attitude of Her Majesty’s Government if the Foreign Office could be a little less restrictive in that respect.
	That said, I feel that, in general, the approach of the Foreign Office to our work, and responses to our reports and what we have to say when we write letters and so forth, is very encouraging and helpful. I have great pleasure in supporting the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Boswell.

Lord Harrison: My Lords, I speak as a second steed, with flaring nostrils, under the whip of the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, as our ringmaster for the six sub-committees reporting to him. Perhaps I may add to the praise given by the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, and say that the strategies that the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, deploys include having a large range of anecdotage from which he chooses appropriate anecdotes for the various six sub-committees to calm our nerves and to encourage us.
	Perhaps I may pick up one point that the noble Lord has made, about the worth of the examinations made by the sub-committees of his European Union Select Committee. They are of a very high standard. We are regularly told that they are read throughout Europe and the United Kingdom, and I may say that they present a sharp contrast to the poor, low and risible level of examination of items important to the United Kingdom which is performed at the other end of this Palace. I say so because the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, has made reference to the tripartite meetings whereby British Members of the European Parliament meet MPs from the other end and your Lordships. It is quite clear there that the conversation is between your Lordships, who have a grasp of the important European items, and those who hold dossiers in the European Parliament—and there is a third and absent partner.
	I offer an apology to the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, for the fact that, through an accident which was partly of my making, he was excluded from the debate which we held last night on the euro area financial crisis. I feel this all the more tellingly because he it was who in 2010 asked Sub-Committee A to report back to the Select Committee on “What did you do in the financial crisis?” I believe we have done well in reporting and having six-monthly looks at the developing problems, which have now, fortunately, subsided. I am extremely sorry that he was not able to attend last night and I put that on record.
	I will try to abbreviate some of the things I have said. One of the important items was the financial transaction tax. We thoroughly examined and re-examined the threat to this country, and particularly to the City of London, which we have highlighted in terms of that tax. It could be really quite an unfortunate tax that works adversely in the European Union and to the
	detriment of financial services in this country. I recently met with the Prime Minister of Slovenia and the central bank governor of Slovenia, who was in Parliament this Monday, to ask them why Slovenia has withdrawn from being one of the 11 countries going forward with the financial transaction tax. That takes it down to 10; getting near to the nine where enhanced co-operation can be permitted to proceed. I will not say any more on the FTT, which has had much interest in this House.
	Regarding ‘Genuine Economic and Monetary Union’ and the Implications for the UK, we heard evidence between May and November 2013 from a wide range of witnesses across the EU. We collected valuable evidence on visits to Brussels, Berlin and Frankfurt—where we visited the European Central Bank and the Bundesbank. Our report was published in 2014 and found that genuine economic and monetary union was highly contentious yet banking union was vital to tackling the effects of the financial crisis. However, what had been agreed at that time was insufficient to break the vicious cycle linking banking and sovereign debt. We also noted the strong case for some fiscal transfers and debt mutualisation, but concluded that the proposals for an integrated budgetary and economic policy faced widespread political opposition. Although the full vision remains a distant prospect, the eurozone is on the road towards greater integration already. The implications for the United Kingdom are immense. A strong and prosperous eurozone is in the interests of all EU members, as is a strong and engaged United Kingdom.
	After the report was published, the co-legislators reached agreement on the next leg of banking union—the single resolution mechanism. In correspondence with the Minister, the sub-committee noted that the deal went some way towards addressing the concerns it had set out in its report, including the shorter mutualisation period for the single resolution fund and a somewhat more streamlined decision-making process. However, the sub-committee warned that the resolution process remained complex and there was a risk that funding, at €55 billion, would be inadequate to deal with the scale of bank failures witnessed in recent years. This report was debated in the House on 2 July, and I was gratified that Members of the House from beyond the sub-committee, including the noble Lords, Lord Lamont and Lord Jay of Ewelme, participated.
	As I have mentioned, our summary of the euro area crisis has been developed over the years. We heard most recently from the former Prime Minister of Italy, Mario Monti, Erkki Liikanen, not only a former Commissioner himself but now governor of the Bank of Finland, Sir Jon Cunliffe, our man in Brussels who is now the deputy governor for financial stability at the Bank of England, and Gerard Lyons who is the City’s—Boris Johnson’s—economic expert. The sub-committee found that there were indeed welcome signs that the crisis had eased, but it would nevertheless be unwise to conclude that the storm has entirely passed. As I have said, we had a debate on it last night and colleagues will be interested to consult that.
	There were other significant pieces of work, including on shadow banking. The sub-committee undertook detailed scrutiny of the Commission’s documents, which
	I will not list here. We heard further evidence from the European Commission—we previously heard from an absolutely outstanding Spanish lady who was a veritable expert on budgetary matters—and from the CBI on the proposals. We sent an extensive letter to the Government in April, asking for their views on defining shadow banking, the size of the shadow banking sector, the benefits and risks of shadow banking and the global regulatory response. It is something to which we will have to return.
	Towards the end of the 2013-14 session, the sub-committee commenced its examination of the European Commission’s proposals for banking structural reform, contained in the regulation on structural measures improving the resilience of EU credit institutions. The sub-committee heard evidence during April and May from the European Commission and senior banking sector representatives. It continues to scrutinise these important proposals in the new Session, and has exchanged correspondence with Ministers on issues such as the ban on proprietary trading, the structural separation of banks, and the impact on the UK and the derogation provision.
	We have also been dealing with the 2015 draft budget and the draft amending budget for 2014. Again, a huge backlog of outstanding payments to member states has accumulated: €23 billion which the Commission is required to pay, including €1.3 billion relating to the UK. The front-loading or prioritisation of payments for certain EU programmes leading to undue pressure in later years has been another of our concerns, as has the use of an emergency pot of funds called the contingency margin to make ends meet in the mean time. Again, we will have to return to this.
	Finally, we have embarked upon a new inquiry into the EU financial regulatory framework. The majority of the reforms having been introduced within the EU, it is an apposite time to step back and assess the strengths and weaknesses of the new regulatory frameworks that have been introduced since the outbreak of the financial crisis. The inquiry will seek to identify any overlaps, contradictions, inconsistencies and gaps in the regulatory landscape. It will also focus particularly on the implications of the regulatory agenda for the United Kingdom, and the extent to which its interests have been impinged upon or enhanced. The sub-committee began its evidence programme on 22 July, earlier this week, when Sharon Bowles, the outstanding former MEP and chair of the European Parliament’s ECON committee came before us and gave us a flying start to what will prove to be an interesting inquiry, with which we hope to leave a message in the bottle for a future committee to take up the work after the general election.
	I want to bring to the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, something that has come up not only during the discussion with Sharon Bowles on Tuesday but also today. One question we asked of Sharon Bowles was what relationships we have with the pivotal euro group—the 18 member states that are members of the euro and meet together to discuss matters that are relevant to the euro in particular. It has been the hallmark of my committee that we have asked each Economic Secretary and Financial Secretary whether they engage
	with the euro group and we have been told repeatedly, “No, other than that we meet them in the corridor”. The reason why I bring that up is that Sharon Bowles gave evidence to the effect that the United Kingdom was offered a place to attend in a privileged position in the euro group, which was of course at one time the backyard of the incoming Commission President, Jean-Claude Juncker. I seek to find whether that is the case.
	When I attended a session this morning in the City, I was told that not only had this been done historically but it was offered to our own Chancellor of the Exchequer to be able to sit in—or for his representative to sit in—with the other 18 members of the euro group. Is that true, and is there evidence that we have had that offer and declined that offer? If it is the case that the United Kingdom, especially given its expertise in financial and regulatory matters, has spurned the opportunity to sit there next to the 18 members of the euro group as they construct and deal with the development of the regulatory framework, that would be such a huge dereliction of duty that I thought it appropriate to bring it to the attention of the House in this afternoon’s debate. We need that clarified, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, will pursue the matter and give us an answer that satisfies our repeated call for us to stay outside the euro—as we will for some time—but, for the purposes of the financial and economic structures being built in Europe now, to remain close and interested and integrated into that process for the benefit of the United Kingdom and the broader Europe.

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, follow that! What a thunderbolt—or at least it was one to me.
	I believe that it is a duty but first of all a pleasure to thank the chairman of the EU Select Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, for all his support, humour and encouragement during the year, as well as for introducing this debate on the work of the EU Select Committee and its sub-committees in the 2013-14 Session.
	I have the privilege of being chairman of Sub-Committee B. Our remit is to scrutinise proposed or actual legislation in the areas of the internal market, infrastructure and employment. I also sit on the main EU Select Committee. The highlights of the sub-committee’s year are already outlined in the annual report, so I shall use this debate for a few of my own reflections on some of the interesting moments in the sub-committee’s work this Session.
	The pre and post-European election atmosphere in Brussels resulted in proposals coming to a conclusion that the committee has been scrutinising in the long term. Sometimes it feels that some of the work that we do has little relevance to the 500 million people who live in the 28 member states. Those feelings persist when I get a sheaf of paper, all written in bureaucratic, turgid prose. However, part of the joy of the job is when our attention is drawn by our clerk and policy analyst to the likely impact of the content of this turgidity, if there is such a word, which can or could be of benefit to everyone.
	To a man and a woman—more than one woman—we get enthusiastic about an issue like universal high-speed broadband. We examined the Commission’s proposal
	for a regulation aiming to reduce the overall cost of the new superfast superstructure for a new entrant operator involving better co-ordination of street works and by network operators. However, we felt that a directive would be a better instrument than the regulation, as it would enable the Government to implement the measures more flexibly. In the end, this became a success story and I am afraid that we have to update page 31, paragraph 115, of the annual report of the Select Committee, because we actually have sorted out the final legislation. It is sound and it is in the form of a directive, so that is one minor feather in our cap.
	This is a positive example, however, that the views of national Governments and parliaments can have a real impact. The study on the national impact of national parliaments has already been referred to several times. I commend it to every Member of the House, because the EU is going to become of ever increasing importance between now and pre-election and, indeed, post-election. We really should be as up to speed as possible because we are always going to be questioned by the chattering classes outside.
	We hope that the proposal on superfast broadband will help the 500 million people, at least half of whom are involved, connect to the internet, and ensure minimal disruption by street work. The whole point of the digital agenda is that it is creating bigger and bigger divides and that has to be tackled. That is not part of our agreement, but it is part of our concentration on where the House of Lords can bring matters to the attention of Government.
	As noted in the report, in tackling this, we had informal one-off meetings with BIS officials. We have found it very useful to speak to officials in person, rather than via correspondence and found out exactly what was happening in the negotiations. I think that the more we can do of this, the speedier can be the response to Brussels. It will ensure a deeper understanding for everybody involved. Building up a good relationship with officials and the Executive is so much better than tending to deal with them at arm’s length.
	The posting of workers directive was the most interesting case, allowing companies to employ their own staff on projects in other member states on home country terms. The proposal attempted to improve existing provisions and to avoid social dumping. Another very topical and difficult issue was the situation of the rights of migrant workers, an EU document to strengthen workers’ rights. We held two formal evidence sessions, one with NGOs and academics and then with the Minister for Immigration. The Commission argued that the rights were not being properly enforced by some law enforcement officers and employers. The committee got tough and agreed with the Government that we did not need even more legislation but that the EU should show courage to use the existing structures. For example, the EU should use enforcement proceedings against offending member states.
	As it happened, the committee’s work in this case was set against an interesting backdrop. On 30 May 2013 the Commission announced it was launching infringement proceedings against the UK for its approach to benefits for EU nationals from other member states in the UK. The Government had written to the Commission
	indicating that cities were under strain due to migrant benefit tourism. The committee asked the Government to provide more robust data to back up these claims. They did not provide robust data. The committee was not satisfied. After the Summer Recess the committee will consider the Government’s
	Balance of Competencies Review on Free Movement Rights
	published on Tuesday 22 July.
	I shall turn to inquiries. The noble Lord, Lord Boswell, has already referred to the youth employment report. The debate was on 17 June and was lively, with a variety of Members participating. It has created quite a few waves and we are constantly trying to encourage more people to think positively of what we can do in the local area, much more so than trying to get big schemes which will take the whole of the UK and forget the differences between them.
	We used Twitter to ask the public what Members should ask the Minister for Employment and the Minister for Skills and Enterprise. This was a novel tool for our committee. Perhaps the House should reflect on the potential benefit of using it. It might make people realise that we do want their views. We had useful evidence sessions with young people at the Prince’s Trust Centre in Liverpool and at Birmingham City Council. It was great to get very straightforward views—my delicate ears were subjected to rather earthy language—from young people trying to get into the jobs market and to link the debates about funding at EU level with the practical reality of youth unemployment on the ground.
	As a committee, we firmly believe in the necessity of follow-up work. Following our women on boards inquiry, which reported in 2012, we heard from the Government, the shadow rapporteur on the Women’s Rights and Gender Equality Committee in the European Parliament, which drafted its “own initiative” report on women on boards, and the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills. The excellent session with the right honourable Dr Vince Cable occurred recently. I shall quote verbatim from the transcript. Dr Cable stated:
	“What has come across to me, more strongly than in many of my other conversations, is the way in which you are very much on top of what is happening with the European Union dimension and the way things can move quite quickly and in a different way from what we experience, and that we need to do some balanced thinking about how we would manage that”.
	That was not about me; it was about the committee. However, it was very gratifying to hear that because sometimes there is a huge gap between members of Select Committees and the Ministers who have the final say on any matter. We hope that that will lead to a greater meeting of minds.
	The issue of subsidiarity seems to come up at every meeting. In fact, I believe that we have real experts on the subject on our sub-committee. Subsidiarity means that action should be taken at EU level only where it is appropriate. It is a very important issue. We closely scrutinise all proposals from the EU under the subsidiarity magnifying glass—for example, the occupational retirement pension funds directive, which deals with the governance and transparency of the operation of these types of pension fund schemes in the EU. The vast majority of these schemes are located in just four
	of the 28 member states, including the UK. Because of this, the committee felt that the issues the proposal aims to address would be better actioned at national level. We are keeping a close eye on the proposal as negotiations progress and have written to the Commission and the Government outlining our concerns. We do not drag our feet. I do not think that we are different from any other sub-committee but we are very proud of ours.
	I pay tribute to all members of the committee, all of whom are lively, interested and work very hard. I know that all of them in turn agree that without the support and direction of our clerk, Nicole Mason, and our policy analyst, Paul Dowling, and the ability to have really good specialist advisers and backroom staff—I must not forget them—we would be lost.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, I wish to focus my remarks on the work of Sub-Committee D, which I have had the honour to chair since May last year. This is not in any way to downplay the important work undertaken by the Select Committee itself. Our report into the role of national Parliaments is a timely and valuable contribution to a growing debate across Europe and reflects the leadership shown by my noble friend Lord Boswell, whom I thank for his personal support for my work. In my work on the sub-committee, I try very hard to reflect the principles outlined in the report on the role of national parliaments —namely, that of engagement with counterparts and officials from across the EU and looking at policy before it reaches its final legislative form.
	Our work this year was dominated by the topic of food waste, to which I shall return in a moment. Some of our scrutiny work followed up on the excellent work undertaken by my predecessors, the noble Lords, Lord Carter of Coles and Lord Sewel, and it shows, I believe, the value of well considered inquiries undertaken early in the policy-making process. This is a hallmark of much of the work across the sub-committees and it is something that we do well.
	In 2008, the committee published a report on reform of the common fisheries policy. Five years down the line, I am delighted to say that the work came to fruition. Regulations to reform the CFP were adopted that strongly reflected the key themes of our committee’s 2008 report, including the decentralisation of decision-making and the introduction of a discard ban. Last summer, when the deal was done, the committee turned to the practical implementation of these policies, particularly the discard ban. It remains one that we should be watching.
	The second major dossier that reached its end point last year was the reform of the common agricultural policy—although, of course, it never reaches an end; it is like painting the Forth Bridge. Under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Coles, the sub-committee had undertaken an inquiry into innovation in EU agriculture. Redirecting the juggernaut of the CAP is no small task, but incremental steps have been taken along the lines proposed by the committee in its report, and I am pleased to say that the committee continues to press the important themes of research
	and knowledge transfer as the process of implementation returns. It has also clearly become more of a priority for the Government because this week they have announced new investment in agricultural research.
	One way in which we pressed those themes was through our recent report into the prevention of food waste in the EU. On-farm innovation is a very important element of tackling food waste at the initial stages of the food chain. The press and public interest that our report drew surprised even us; the press office tells me that it received more coverage than any House of Lords report it could ever remember. I want to trade anecdotes with my noble friend Lady O’Cathain and the noble Lord, Lord Boswell. The Independent described our committee as a “true adornment” of your Lordships’ House.
	It is very important now for us to follow up this work. The European Commission recently produced amendments to its waste legislation that very strongly reflect the recommendations that we made in our report to have an aspirational food waste reduction target—not legislatively binding—and to work on standard definitions across the EU. We are awaiting more information from the Commission and a non-legislative communication from it in the autumn. We will also hold a seminar to look at the practical barriers to redistribution of surplus food. I am now constantly being briefed by organisations and businesses across the country and, indeed, Europe on the work that it is doing to reduce food waste. I think that demonstrates that we are regarded as leaders in this thinking.
	I turn briefly to some other work. We are currently in the midst of a very intensive period of work, within the EU and internationally, on future approaches to energy and climate policy. It was very pleasing that messages in our report last year with regard to EU energy policy have been reflected in the Commission's proposed policy for energy and climate change through to 2030. This relates particularly to the importance of creating a stable environment to support long-term investment. I am also very pleased that, as the Energy Bill was making its way through this House, noble Lords made a number of references to the work that we had done in our committee. This shows that there is a crossover between the work that we do in the European scrutiny context and in the wider work of the House. Work on energy and climate change will be at the headlines of our next inquiry, into EU regional marine co-operation, which we launched at the beginning of this week. We are trying to bring a number of these things together, such as fisheries, energy interconnectivity and knowledge transfer. I hope that what I have said gives a sense of the work that we have been doing and that we plan to do, and demonstrates that we continue to seek to build and follow up on previous work.
	There is a further point that I wish to make. It is a matter not for the Government but for this House. The new rotation rules that have now been introduced for the European committees will result in a two-thirds change of membership of my committee and that of a number of others next year. I suggest that a two-thirds change really runs completely counter to the principles of gathering experience and ensuring the effective running of the committee. As if that were not bad
	enough, after I had thought about it, I realised that the changes will mean that, every third year, two-thirds of the committee will disappear. I hope that the House will rethink that because it will make our work very difficult indeed.
	I am grateful to all members of my committee, who are a joy to work with. They contribute a huge amount of their time, their experience, their expertise and, above all, their enthusiasm to make us successful. I should like to pay particular tribute this evening to Lord Lewis of Newnham, who died earlier this month after a long illness. His interest in all aspects of our work, coupled with his immense knowledge of chemistry, made his contribution invaluable. We miss his deceptively gentle, incisive questioning and his kindness.
	Finally, we would not be so effective if it were not for the work of our staff. I put on record my thanks to our committee assistant Mark Gladwell, our clerk Patrick Milner, his predecessor Aaron Speer and our policy analyst Alistair Dillon, whose encyclopaedic knowledge of the range of work we cover is always truly astonishing.

The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am the new boy to the European Union Committee, having joined it in May, so it is not for me to sing the praises of what the committee does. I will leave that to the words of Maroš Šefcovic, the Commissioner for Inter-Institutional Relations, when he stated in evidence to the committee, quoted at paragraph 1 of our report, that,
	“the House of Lords is one of the most active chambers we have in the European Union”.
	I wish the other countries did the same as we do. In the same paragraph, we quote the Financial Times describing our reports as,
	“the sort of calm, balanced report that ought to inform public debate”.
	They do, and I will come on to that in a moment.
	I regret being unable to take part in the debate we had yesterday on the euro area crisis, which my chairman on Sub-Committee A, the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, referred to. Like him, I will refer to another piece of work we did, on the financial transaction tax. One of our duties, which is highlighted in paragraph 40, is to hold,
	“the UK Government to account for its actions on the European stage”.
	When we took evidence, it became clear to the committee that the Government had not been as proactive as we would have liked them to have been. Quite rightly, as we say in paragraph 95,
	“we criticised the UK Government for its diffident approach to the FTT, and its reluctance over several months to take seriously our concerns”.
	It is quite right that, as committees, we can criticise our Governments. Equally, it is quite right that, as committees, we ought to be able to criticise the Commission too, which we do in paragraph 52:
	“We were disappointed that the Commission’s responses have been uneven in quality and have not always engaged the substance of the political dialogue”.
	I hope that is noted in Brussels, because it is important that this is a two-way exercise. I want to major a little on that and take a personal perspective.
	When I was on Sub-Committee D, which the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, who has just spoken, now chairs, it had just finished a report on the common fisheries policy. That work was so good and so highly regarded that it influenced a major part of the Commission’s thinking on the common fisheries policy. As a result, the laws have been changed. We took a proactive, reasoned approach. We took exactly the same proactive, reasoned approach when it came to reform of the common agricultural policy. Alas, the Commission did not follow that, and there has been no reform of the common agricultural policy.
	I think it is worth pausing for a moment to think of the huge share of EU resources that the common agricultural policy takes up, despite the small reduction in the budget that has been achieved. If we could have reduced the common agricultural policy budget, how much more could we have done for important things such as growth and youth unemployment, which is more than 50% in Spain and Greece, that cannot be tackled because of this large common agricultural policy budget? That is a problem in Europe, one that Mr Juncker has to face and get a grip on if the EU is going fulfil its potential.
	We also took evidence from Sir Jon Cunliffe. He gave us very wise advice. He told Sub-Committee A that we should have contacts with the euro group, ensure its meetings took place in the context of other EU meetings and be ready to offer technical advice without lecturing or providing unwanted counsel. That was very wise advice. We must not stand and berate Europe; we must participate fully in the negotiations, as the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, said earlier. Again, that is a two-way street. I was deeply saddened by what the President-elect of the European Commission said in his five points. His fifth point was that it is one of his priorities to solve the British problem. There is no British problem; there is an EU problem of which Britain is part. We take evidence around Europe because we are a proactive member of the EU. My concern is that if the impression is given that we are a problem, we might not get the quality of evidence that we have had before, and if we do not have the quality of evidence that we have had to date our reports will not be as good as they have been to date, and that would be detrimental not just to the UK but to the whole of Europe. Therefore, I regret his remarks. I hope that they are not taken in the wrong way.
	This is something that we should be able to solve together. We have a very busy schedule—my noble friend Lord Tugendhat said that we have a condensed Session—so we have to do a lot of work in a short time. We are hugely privileged to be part of an EU Committee at this time of our history. We are in a moment of intense change and challenge. How lucky we are to be part of it. How lucky we are to be able to write reports that other people read. Like other noble Lords, I thank our staff for all their help because without them we could not do it.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, annual reports such as the one we are debating today are all too easily dismissed as routine matters going over
	familiar ground. In this case at least, that would be a considerable error because the report we are considering reveals that your Lordships’ EU Select Committee has been breaking some interesting new ground, and has produced a report on the role of national parliaments in the shaping of EU policies and legislation which addresses an issue of major topical concern right across Europe and provides elements for reform that could be of real value in months and years ahead.
	I begin by paying tribute to our chair, the noble Lord, Lord Boswell of Aynho, whose patient and perceptive leadership contributed so much to the work of the committee in the period we are discussing, and to my former colleagues on the committee, from which I stood down in May.
	I shall say a short word about the new ground. We have all become aware through our work on EU issues that too often the valuable scrutiny work of national parliaments comes too late to have much influence on the final outcome. Too frequently, the proposals on which we comment are pretty well set in concrete by the time our views are known. To be fair to the Commission—not an entirely fashionable thing to be on this side of the channel—it has been saying for some time that it wishes that national parliaments would intervene more upstream of it making formal proposals. Vice-President Šefcovic said that to COSAC last autumn. We agree and we have begun to do that, for example, in a report that my sub-committee produced on the strategic objectives for justice and home affairs, which we debated on 22 July to reasonably good effect, since the decisions reached by the European Council on 27 June bore a striking resemblance to the recommendations that we made. Another example of new ground being broken is instances where we question whether the European Union is taking seriously a really important Europe-wide challenge. In this case, I refer to the report on food waste, which the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, produced and to which she referred. Let us hope that all EU institutions will study that report with care and will draw some conclusions on how best to reduce that shameful waste.
	I want to concentrate most of my remarks today on our report on the role of national parliaments, an issue that I am glad to say figured on the strategic agenda for the European Union’s next five years, which was adopted by the European Council on 27 June. It said that the credibility of the Union will benefit from greater involvement of national parliaments. That is precisely what we said in our report. Now they need to get down to it and do it. Our report contains a large menu of possible reforms to that effect, which would not require the complexities and pitfalls of treaty change. I will discuss a few examples.
	First, there is the yellow card system, under which national parliaments can submit reasoned opinions that argue that a Commission proposal has not met the subsidiarity criteria in the treaty. That is clearly not working as well as it should. It is not hard to see why. The eight weeks provided for the submission of reasoned opinions is grossly inadequate—neither the Commission, the Parliament, nor the Council operates within such a short timeframe. Why on earth, then, do they think that national parliaments can and should?
	One of our suggestions is that the Commission should change the time limit to 12 or 16 weeks. That would enable national parliaments to consult each other and concert their views, which is virtually impossible under the present eight-week cut-off.
	Secondly, there is clear evidence that the outgoing Commission has not been treating the yellow card procedure with respect and seriousness. The first time the yellow card was triggered over the Monti II proposal, the Commission withdrew its proposal but explicitly went out of its way to say that it was not doing so because the yellow card had been invoked. The second time it was triggered, over the proposed European Public Prosecutor’s Office, it resubmitted its proposal within three weeks, unchanged, and did not explain why it was doing so to the national parliaments, which had introduced reasoned opinions, until several months later. Presumably it took that time to work out why it had done what it had done within three weeks—not, frankly, a good way to handle things. It simply will not do. The new Commission, when it takes office in November, should make it clear that when a yellow card is triggered it will either withdraw the proposal or amend it substantially.
	Thirdly, the Commission should make clear that it will, in future, accept that reasoned opinions can address the issue of the treaty-based principle of proportionality as well as the arguments about subsidiarity. The current distinction between the treatment of these two criteria is neither logical nor defensible.
	There are plenty of other ideas in the menu we set out in our report on national parliaments: the possibility for national parliaments to initiate proposals—the so-called green card—ways in which COSAC could help national parliaments strengthen their scrutiny of draft EU legislation while respecting every parliament’s different procedures based on constitutional differences in each member state; the strengthening of links between national parliaments and the committees of the European Parliament, which often simultaneously consider the same Commission proposals; and the need for the new Commission to engage closely with national parliaments and be ready to give evidence to them.
	The Government have certainly not hastened to respond to this report. They overran the two-month limit several times and were in fact two additional months behind earlier this week when they finally produced their response. Clearly, they did not find it easy to make up their mind. However, this issue of the role of national parliaments is a crucial part of the positive reform agenda which the EU as a whole needs to grasp and press forward. Perhaps the Minister when he replies to this debate will be able to throw some light on the Government’s thinking and how they intend to carry the matter forward. In any case, we will in due course be able to debate the matter fully on the basis of the EU Select Committee’s report on national parliaments and the Government’s somewhat belated response.
	This evening, I will make only one remark about the Government’s response, which can perhaps be regarded as a taster for the full debate to come. In their introductory response, the Government stated flatly that,
	“the real source of democratic legitimacy in the EU lies with national parliaments and national governments”.
	Throwing down the gauntlet to the European Parliament in this way is tactically crass and strategically wrong. How on earth can one say that a parliament elected by universal suffrage is not a—I do not suggest it is “the”—real source of democratic legitimacy? Your Lordships’ Select Committee made no such claim. Indeed, we made it clear that in our view national parliaments and the European Parliament shared the task of shaping EU legislation. If the Government wish to ensure that any proposals they make for strengthening the role of national parliaments are dead on arrival, I can think of no better way of doing that than organising a food fight between national parliaments and the European Parliament. There is, after all, no good argument than cannot be spoiled by exaggeration.

Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as another new member of the European Union Committee, I have listened with interest to the contributions to this debate, in particular to that of the other new boy, my noble friend Lord Caithness. After all, it is necessary not only to hold the Government and European Union institutions to account, but to account for our own work. This annual report—and the debate—do that very well.
	Although I may be new to the main EU Committee, I previously served as a member of Sub-Committee A and now enjoy all the work on Sub-Committee B. I well remember, too, as a Member of the first directly elected European Parliament way back in the early 1980s, that House of Lords reports were—even then—referred to and quoted. That was done not just by British Members but by German, Italian and French Members, too, in spite of the fact that the reports are not—as far as I am aware—translated into any other language.

Lord Boswell of Aynho: We do consider in the Select Committee—there will be occasions when we are producing another report—whether to make translations available. If it is appropriate, we do not close our mind to doing so.

Baroness Hooper: I was not aware of that. The fact that the House of Lords European Union Committee reports are so widely respected and referred to is due to their being well researched and clearly written. Although I struggled at times with the technicalities and detail of financial and banking regulation when I served on EU Sub-Committee A under the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, the reports, when published, made it all comprehensible. We are fortunate in having excellent and high-calibre staff, and their work contributes to that as well.
	I recently attended a meeting of COSAC, to which the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, referred at the outset. That, together with the committee’s report on the role of national parliaments, has confirmed my view that to understand the thinking behind a number of the proposals that come out of Brussels and the procedures that they advocate, it is necessary for us all to understand each other’s systems and procedures. It is not only the fact that a common-law approach to legislation is different from the civil law approach, which applies in
	most other EU countries; it is that here in the UK, in our parliamentary democracy, we are used to the Prime Minister and all Ministers being Members of Parliament and therefore immediately and regularly accountable to Parliament. That is different from a presidential system where the President and his appointed Ministers may rarely attend their parliament, assemblée or congress.
	The European Parliament is based more on the presidential system, with the Council of Ministers taking the role of President, than on ours. I fear that many commentators and press reports do not understand that or take it into account. It is therefore necessary to have regular contact and communication between members of national parliaments so that we are aware of those differences and can find a way to make progress in spite of them. Parliaments are, after all, ever-changing bodies and so those contacts must be kept up to renew and update the message regularly.
	Having said that, it is of the utmost importance to understand and maintain contact with the European Parliament itself, particularly with British MEPs, again so that we realise why they go about things in a different way. That is especially important at this moment in the aftermath of the European elections and the appointment of a new Commission. We need to work with them to achieve the best possible results not only for our own population but for the whole of Europe.
	That is my message for today. I am delighted to add my thanks and congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, as chairman of the Select Committee, and support his Motion.

Baroness Valentine: My Lords, before I begin, I declare that I am chief executive of London First, a not-for-profit business membership organisation.
	I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, on securing the debate. I am pleased to serve as a member of Lords EU Select Committee Sub-Committee B. We are tasked with investigating matters relating to the internal market, infrastructure and employment—three areas of critical importance to our future competitiveness. I want to reflect on those issues in relation to the EU, and particularly on the committee’s recent investigation into youth unemployment.
	We are not here today to debate the UK’s membership of the EU. That question will undoubtedly continue to exercise the Chamber for many years to come. However, it is worth reflecting on the opportunities that membership provides. It provides access to the largest economic bloc in the world. The GDP of the EU is worth around $18 trillion compared with the US economy of $16 trillion, and is more than twice the size of China’s $8 trillion. Particularly in services, where the UK is exceptionally strong, there is a further up side to come from completion of the single market. It is estimated that the completion of the digital market alone would provide a 4% uplift to European GDP.
	British citizens have the freedom to work in other European countries—from a student working as a barista in Barcelona to a financial analyst working in Frankfurt. Of course, this freedom of movement works in both directions. The quid pro quo is that citizens
	across the EU can work in the UK. While this adds to the pool of talent available to make our companies more competitive, it also provides a challenge to those with lower skills. But from a pan-European perspective, the fact that people can move around to look for jobs is healthy both economically and for the individuals concerned.
	Our report identified large parts of Europe that face chronic and persistent levels of youth unemployment. In Greece, almost 60% of people aged 15-24 are unemployed; in Spain the figure is 54% and in Cyprus 40.4%. In the UK, youth unemployment is lower but, at around 22%, is still more than double the rate recorded in Germany and the Netherlands.
	Behind those statistics lie human stories of wasted talent, unfulfilled potential and fear for the future. The impacts of such endemic unemployment cannot be underestimated. At worst, it can fuel social unrest and, at the least, young people across the continent risk missing out on the psychological and economic benefits of being in work, learning new skills and being independent. As George Orwell wrote, unemployment for humans is the equivalent of shackling a dog to a chain. I have as much sympathy for the unemployed in Athens as I do for those in London. The solution for the UK is not to put up barriers but to improve skills and education provision.
	Are there ways that Europe can work more effectively to help us get young people into work? I believe there are. First, Europe can provide robust analysis of effective interventions across the Union. The UK should learn from best practice in other member states and not arrogantly dismiss ideas and methods that work elsewhere on the continent. One such example is the UK’s refusal to follow the majority of member states in introducing a youth guarantee, with funding provided by the European Social Fund. This would require the British Government to ensure that all young people find suitable work, training or further education opportunities within four months of being unemployed. At the very least, the Government should pilot the guarantee in areas most blighted by youth unemployment and measure its success.
	Secondly, the UK should learn from the approach to training in the very best EU countries. I am told by those who follow sporting matters that the German football team has been the toast of Europe this summer, while England were found wanting. The German success reflects a wider facet of their culture; in particular, a serious, long-term approach to training. Indeed, its dual system of vocational education and training has been a major factor in Germany’s economic success and low levels of youth unemployment.
	Vocational training is a term that still carries stigma in Britain. We tend to look down our noses at people who work with their hands. But other European countries —Germany and the Netherlands in particular—have reaped substantial rewards from building a partnership between business and government that links study and practical experience. Put simply, the UK needs to upskill its own learning skills.

Lord Bowness: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Boswell of Aynho, for his introduction of this report and for his chairmanship during the year in question, when I was still a member of the Select Committee. I am very pleased not to have severed all connections and to have the pleasure of serving on Sub-Committee D under the chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market.
	I will begin by making two points, which I suspect ought to be addressed to the mysterious usual channels, not the Minister. When the Select Committee first decided that its annual report should be put down for debate and not merely published, it was hoped that the debate would provide the focus and opportunity for a wide debate on European Union matters, to be answered by Ministers as well as providing a window on the activities of the committee itself. While we have had a full and wide-ranging debate with many valuable contributions from all the noble Lords who have spoken before me, the graveyard slot of a hot summer Thursday in July is not conducive to drawing in a wider range of Members other than members of the EU Committee and its sub-committees. I am sure that there are difficulties in timetabling, but given the breadth of subjects covered in the report, which shows just how much European Union matters are in fact part of mainstream politics, in future a means should be found of getting a better and more substantial billing for this annual report, which it deserves. Moreover, if I may say so as a coda to that comment, so do the Select Committee reports which are offered similar slots despite the time and work that has gone into them and the public interest expressed.
	The chairmanships of the noble Lords, Lord Tordoff, Lord Renfrew and Lord Roper, and now the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, have indeed ensured the enviable status which the committee enjoys, if not in this House then across the European Union and other national parliaments. This is because of the leadership shown by our successive chairmen and the thoroughness and objectivity of the reports, which in turn owe something to the expertise brought to bear on the subjects by Members who have been involved with European Union affairs through the medium of the Select Committee and its sub-committees. My noble friend Lady Scott of Needham Market has already referred to the changes which have been made to the rules on sub-committee membership. I will say no more than this. Even if it was right to limit membership to three Sessions with no return for two, the retrospective element and the decision to treat the European Union Select Committee and its sub-committees in this way is a matter that the usual channels—because undoubtedly they control these matters whatever the formalities of the decision-making process—should revisit urgently and quickly if value and expertise are not to be decimated.
	The report looks forward as well as looking back, and one of the important activities of the committee will continue to be the sessions held with the ambassador of the incoming presidency and with the Minister for Europe. I suggest that that is an opportunity where the committee, on behalf of the whole House, is able not just to react to Government and the European Union,
	but to press for action in particular areas. Perhaps I may outline three of the areas which I would like to mention.
	The first is that enlargement to include the states of the western Balkans—I was told at the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly meeting that south-eastern Europe is how they prefer to be referred to—must be kept high on the agenda. We should be applying our efforts to resolve the Macedonia situation, to advance its candidature, and to ensure that the normalisation of relations between Serbia and Kosovo continues. We need to confirm our continued enthusiasm for eventual membership of these countries and the others of that area. I would say to the Minister that we should not link the enlargement agenda with our own possible attempts by the United Kingdom to renegotiate its place in Europe, as initially we tried to do with Albania, and our doubts about freedom of movement. If we do that we will undoubtedly create uncertainty in those countries about our true intentions, and once that happens, the reforms will falter and the countries will start to look elsewhere.
	Membership for none of these states is an immediate prospect, but the steady advance in that direction should not be stopped, and the growth of substantial Russian investment in the region, reported to be some €5 billion euros over five years in Serbia alone—a candidate country—should in itself be sufficient motive to ensure that we put our efforts behind maintaining the European direction of travel. These countries will have an added importance given the routes of proposed schemes such as the trans-Adriatic pipeline, which would help to reduce member states’ dependence on Russia. Reliance on Russian energy and that policy should have a priority in the present circumstances. The United Kingdom should be prepared to lead in that respect and not just leave it to others, because we have only a limited dependence on Russia for our energy.
	The events of this year have emphasised the desirability of the European Union acting together in matters of defence and foreign policy, and underlined the folly expressed by some recently of taking peace and prosperity in Europe for granted. This is not the time to seek selective disengagement. The United Kingdom used to be somewhat reluctant to espouse the cause of a united foreign and defence policy, so it has been interesting to see the Prime Minister pressing member states for united and strong action against Russia. However, I believe that we will find the way forward only in discussion and give and take.
	All member states have different sensitivities, priorities and concerns. Some will have worries about threats to energy supply. The proceeds of sale of a warship may be as important to France as the benefit we derive from the City of London, which was described in Tuesday’s Times as the “haven for Russian Capital”. If we are to find a united way forward we all have to be prepared to sacrifice something to achieve the common good. I hope, in winding up, the Minister may find it possible to comment on these points.
	I return to the report. The European Union Committee has a role to play in questioning and holding the Government to account in their dealings with the
	European Union, and raising the kinds of issues to which I have referred. If I may say so, the report shows how comprehensively it does this and I am sure that the story in next year’s report will be no different. I support the Motion.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, for moving this take note debate. Much more than that, though, on behalf of the Opposition I congratulate the noble Lord and all his colleagues on another year’s work well done. The House, the country beyond and the EU as a whole owe a large debt of gratitude to all members of the EU Committee and its sub-committees. It is obvious that a huge amount of works takes place—not least the scrutiny of EU documents every week by the chairman and the committee’s legal adviser—all of which is to improve our understanding of the European Union and, in particular, of the Commission. Whether it is scrutiny, inquiries, holding Her Majesty’s Government to account, or any other of its myriad responsibilities, the committee and its sub-committees are rightly praised at home and abroad.
	I have little to ask the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, about the year covered in the report. The important points have been mentioned by other noble Lords very clearly and with great expertise during the debate. What particularly interested me was paragraph 122 in chapter 5 on the rights of EU migrant workers. What the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, had to say was extremely helpful here, as her sub-committee debated this issue. Paragraph 125 of the report explains that the Government’s report on abuse of free movement rights was shared with the sub-committee in January 2014. My simple question is: is it possible for others to see the report that the Government shared with the sub-committee? It would make interesting reading for some of us who are interested in this subject. The noble Baroness referred to the balances of competences initiative and said that it was just the other day that the sub-committee received the Government’s review. That is a long way after September 2013 and January 2014, and I wonder what explained the delay. It may be that the Lord chairman—the noble Lord, Lord Boswell—can assist me when he comes to reply. Maybe even the Minister can, too—in fact, I feel certain that he can from the grin on his face.
	The youth employment inquiry under the chairmanship of noble Baroness is of huge interest, too. I get the impression that the sub-committee was not entirely happy with the Government’s response to that inquiry. What I do not know, and perhaps should, is whether the Government have yet formally replied to the inquiry and, if so, what they have said about the sub-committee’s criticisms.
	Let me move forward from last year to the coming year and chapter 10, looking ahead to the 2014-15 session. At paragraph 225, the report states that there was to be a pre-Council evidence session with the Minister for Europe ahead of the vital June European Council meetings. I believe that the meeting took place. I wonder whether in his response the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, will tell us how it went. Noble Lords will
	remember that, before 2010, the House of Commons used to have the opportunity to debate upcoming European Council meetings; in other words—just to make position clear—before they took place. That system was scrapped by the coalition Government shortly after they took office. Will the Minister remind us why those debates were scrapped? This all contrasts very badly with the Dutch approach, where Ministers appear before the relevant Select Committees in advance of European Council meetings. My question to both the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, and the Minister is whether such a system—that is, that of June 2014, where a Minister comes before the committee before the Council meeting—will become the norm again in the United Kingdom. My party’s intention, if it is to win the general election, will be to reinstate House of Commons debates pre European Council meetings and we will consult on the creation of a dedicated EU Select Committee in another place.
	I support my noble friend Lord Harrison in the important question for the Minister that he asked at the end of his speech.
	My final question is more for the Minister than for the noble Lord, Lord Boswell—and I have given the Minister some notice of it. Is it the intention of Her Majesty’s Government to allow either your Lordships’ Committee on the European Union or its Commons equivalent, or perhaps both, to scrutinise the appointment of our new European Commissioner, the noble Lord, Lord Hill? This would mean a formal hearing, with the noble Lord present to answer questions, but, of course, it would not be a confirmation hearing.
	The appointment of the noble Lord, Lord Hill, is popular in your Lordships’ House for very good reasons, not least our admiration for his many qualities. However, if we really believe in an increased role for the British Parliament in scrutinising the Government’s handling of European affairs—there has been some talk of that this afternoon, not least from the noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord Boswell—surely the Government should agree with members of the House of Commons EU Scrutiny Committee and accept its proposal for such a hearing in this case.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hill, will, of course, be before the European Parliament between 20 and 23 September this year. As I understand it, by or on 30 August the European Council will have recommended the new Commissioners for the top posts. I put to the Minister that there is an unanswerable case for our own Parliament to be able to question the noble Lord before he goes before the European Parliament. I look forward to his reply on that important point. I, of course, would like to hear the view of the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, on this but my question is specifically for the Minister in his reply. I really hope he can be encouraging in his answer.
	To finish, on behalf of all of us I once again congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, and his colleagues—those in the House tonight and all the other Members who served on the committee and the sub-committees—on their hard work. They enhance the reputation of this House and deserve our thanks.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I think this is the third time we have had an annual debate on the work of this extremely important committee. I regret that we are very much at the last hour of a Thursday evening and keeping the staff here, and that we are rather thinly staffed on the Benches at the moment, because this is an extremely important committee. When the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, introduced this debate I thought about how long this committee has gone on and how closely many of us have been involved with it. When I first became a Member of this House, the then Clerk of the Parliaments, Michael Wheeler-Booth, enjoyed entertaining people in front of me by saying that when he was the first clerk to the committee one of its first witnesses was a rather nervous young woman academic. He gave her a double gin and tonic before she gave evidence to the committee to steady her nerves. The young academic was Helen Wallace, my wife.
	Shortly after I joined the House, I was posted to Sub-Committee E and, because the chair resigned unexpectedly, I became its chair. I had an experienced clerk to train me and then found myself with an entirely newly appointed and totally inexperienced clerk called Christopher Johnson, whom I was expected to train. I think he has done quite well since then and I hope the committee is happy with the highly experienced clerk he now is.
	We all need calm and reasoned debate on matters European and we all realise how enormously difficult it is amid the cacophony of ignorant prejudice all around us to hold to a highly reasoned and calm debate, often on highly technical issues, set out in highly technical language which, nevertheless, can touch on major UK interests and dilemmas. As some noble Lords may know, I have been involved very closely in the balance of competences reports. I hope noble Lords have followed these with increasing confidence because we have attempted to see them very much as a parallel process of evidence-based consideration of British interests in European co-operation and of how far the current balance of competences suits British economic, social and political bodies engaged with European policy.
	I say to the noble Lord, Lord Bach, that the reason some reports have only just been given to the committee is that the third round of this four-round exercise was completed only some weeks ago, and the 11 reports were published on Tuesday of this week. These included the delayed report on the free movement of persons and the single market report on financial services and capital, which was mentioned in last evening’s debate and provides a high-quality analysis of some of those complicated issues.
	The fourth round is now in process. We hope to complete that before the end of the year. It will include a report on subsidiarity and proportionality, a matter of active interest to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, among others. The fourth round has only seven papers, but because they are on complicated, cross-cutting issues, these will be some of the most difficult. I hope that this will all feed back into the work of your Lordships’ European Union Committee.
	There is another report coming up on enlargement. The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, touched on how complex and delicate a subject that has now become. There is another on citizenship, voting and the related issues of individual rights within the European Union.
	In the process of negotiating the balance of competences papers through three rounds now, I have discovered how much overlap and interaction there is between UK engagement with the European Union and with other multilateral organisations through which the UK pursues and negotiates its economic security, regulatory and political interests: the OECD, the OSCE, the WHO—within which the EU operates as a regional body for certain purposes, which I did not know until I read the balance of competences health report—the IMF, the Bank for International Settlements, the Food and Agriculture Organization and so on. There is a case for this House to consider in the new Parliament whether it should not at least experiment with one or two more committee inquiries that will look at how the UK works through other technical and specialised international organisations.
	The need for calm and reasoned debate, particularly on questions such as Russia and Europe, came home to me as I picked up my Daily Mail this morning and saw the full-page article by Stephen Glover which explains that it is the EU’s fault that the Dutch aircraft was shot down over eastern Ukraine. One needn’t go through the various stages through which he demonstrates that it is entirely the EU’s fault. There is no mention of the pressure from within Ukraine itself for closer relations with the European Union. In December 1991, I spoke at a conference in Kiev, when Ukraine had been independent for three weeks, at which the Prime Minister announced that among the two strategic aims of the state’s foreign policy was to join the EU within three years. I was then asked to explain why that might be a little more difficult than he expected. There was no mention in the article of the Bush Administration’s encouragement of Ukraine and other states to join NATO—“No, it is the European Union’s fault. President Putin is a splendid man and everything that is wrong with the country is the fault of those dreadful people in Brussels”. That means that we absolutely need detailed arguments demonstrating where British interests are better pursued at an EU level or better pursued at the national level, and thus to unpick, one by one, some of the arguments that are produced in the other direction.
	The noble Lord, Lord Harrison, asked me a specific point about whether the Government had been invited to engage with the Eurogroup and whether we have declined or not. I do not know the answer to that. I will draw it to the attention of my Treasury colleagues and promise that we will respond to the committee as soon as we can.
	The noble Lord, Lord Bach touched on the extent to which the Foreign Office co-operates with the committee. As a Foreign Office Minister, I am impressed by the quality of FCO officials working on European issues, the balance of competences and a number of other areas. We are keen to co-operate as far as possible with the committee; that, of course, is part of the strategy of wanting to strengthen the role of national
	parliaments. Mr Lidington appearing before the committee before the June Council was seen as an experiment, but it is certainly something that we might well take further.
	I would merely mention, in terms of what I understand are the Labour Party’s intentions for the other place, that the Commons European Scrutiny Committee proposals—to which the Government have now also responded—suggest that it would be more useful in the other place for departmental Select Committees to become more directly engaged with European issues themselves, rolling the European dimension in with the regular spread of sectoral policy in the United Kingdom.
	Extending the role of national parliaments is one of the targets of the coalition Government’s EU reform agenda, which requires active engagement with the Brussels institutions and other national Parliaments, with the National Parliament Office, which we maintain in Brussels, and with COSAC. I note the slightly mixed message about COSAC from the noble Lord, Lord Boswell. I am sure that it is much better than when I used to go to COSAC.
	We are experimenting with reasoned opinions and yellow cards. Some other parliaments have already produced more reasoned opinions and yellow cards than either of the two Houses of the British Parliament; that is something that we clearly need to take further.
	I take the various critical points that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, made—that there is a shortage of time, which we need to discuss again at the Commission, that there has been resistance from within the Commission to reasoned opinions and that we need to strengthen links also between national parliaments and the new European Parliament, which is an issue to which we must all return.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: Would my noble friend accept that a particular role for government departments in all this is the speed with which Explanatory Memoranda are issued. Certainly on my committee, we have had problems when the clock is ticking on the reasoned opinion taxi meter and we are still waiting for the Government’s Explanatory Memorandum.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: We all understand that that is part of the problem and the pressure, and we are doing our utmost to look at that as well. I also take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, that effective scrutiny necessitates the earliest possible engagement with developing areas of policy, looking at work programmes and strategic views.
	I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, feels that the Government’s scrutiny performance has improved somewhat in the last year. It is one of those things on which we all have to maintain the pressure. Civil servants are always very busy and Ministers always have too many things in their in-tray, but we have to keep up the pressure on all that.
	The noble Lord, Lord Bach, asked whether the Government’s evidence on the abuse of free movement rights could be shared with the House. Much of that is in the free movement of persons paper that was published on Tuesday. Having been very closely involved in negotiations over that paper, I might say that the
	evidence is not always entirely clear; that is part of the problem in discussing questions of free movement of persons and labour and the abuse of free movement rights. That is partly because we do not have exit controls in this country and partly because we do not collect all the central evidence. For example, I questioned at one stage an academic study that suggested that there were 40,000 British citizens receiving benefits in other states in the EU. That is an academic estimate, but nobody is entirely sure whether that is an exact figure. So there are many problems in addressing that very complicated issue.
	The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, asked whether the UK had been diffident in its approach to the financial transaction tax. The Government have been very closely engaged with this issue since publication and, indeed, took a case to the European Court of Justice on that issue to raise the question of how far it would be appropriate for the European Union to move on that subject. We remain actively engaged.
	The noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, talked about the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. That will be a central but extremely difficult issue for the coming year; we know that there will be lobbies not just in France and elsewhere but in this country that will want to raise negative issues about TTIP. That is something that we will clearly have to follow.
	May I say, as spokesperson for the Cabinet Office and therefore dealing with a lot of data sharing issues, that I would welcome the European Union Committee looking further at aspects of the digital single market as well as data sharing and data protection? Some months ago, I asked for a briefing within Whitehall on the digital single market and officials from five different departments came to brief me, demonstrating just how complicated an issue it is. After all, this is all one issue in a complex, multi-levelled set of issues for government that is driven by the speed of technological change. I am constantly struck by how much faster technology is taking us down the road to online, cross-border transactions than we previously understood. The digital single market is a major priority in the Government’s drive for EU reform and it is part of the extension of the single market to services, as services and manufacturing intertwine and overlap. It will be a difficult issue also in TTIP, as data regulation, the cloud and the role of the US service providers hit the issue of data protection.
	I am conscious of the time. I hope that I have answered most of the issues, but I see that there are one or two questions still to come.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: Before the Minister sits down, I understand why he is in some difficulty in addressing the point that I raised about the claim that national parliaments are “the basis” for real legitimacy in the European Council, not in the European Union, not “a basis” for it. Of course he cannot take back the words that, alas, have been written in the response to the national parliament role report, but we are going to debate it again and I hope that he will report back to his colleagues the dangers they are taking if they turn the question of strengthening the role of national parliaments into a contest with the European Parliament. They will not get anywhere if they do that. It has to be
	pursued as a matter in which both national parliaments and the European Parliament have a role in assuring the democratic legitimacy.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: I very much take that point. The new European Parliament is a rather more difficult body with which to co-operate than its predecessor, but I think it is extremely important nevertheless that we do co-operate. I am in the middle of making arrangements to go out myself with one or two others in September to talk to new Members of the European Parliament, British and others, with whom, of course, we must co-operate.

Lord Bach: I am grateful to the noble Lord. May I remind him of my final question? It was about the position regarding the new Commissioner and the Government’s response to him coming to a hearing at either of the two committees or both.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I apologise; I should of course have responded to that. The Government have no difficulty with the noble Lord, Lord Hill, coming to talk to the committee. I think that they would resist any idea that this should be a formal process through which the committee would decide whether or not it thought he was the appropriate British candidate. However, in pursuance of a close and continuing relationship with the committee, I am sure that he would be entirely open to coming to give evidence and to start what will be a continuing process. One of the sad disadvantages of the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, being the European Union’s high representative has been that she has, perforce, had to spend much of her time outside Europe. She has therefore not been able to pursue one of the many useful roles of a commissioner from a particular country, which is to spend time maintaining a link between the public and political elite in her own country and the Brussels process. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Hill, is very anxious to make sure that that is seen to be part of his new role.

Lord Boswell of Aynho: My Lords, this has been an excellent debate and I am grateful to my noble friends and colleagues for their contributions and their very friendly personal remarks, which were much appreciated. I am also grateful to the Minister, as he has outed himself as a former chairman of our home affairs sub-committee. We already know where he comes from, but he reflected that in his thoughtful response.
	I wish to pick up two points that the Minister made. The first one is in relation to yellow cards. I would not for a moment caricature his line of argument as saying that we ought to have yet another performance table on the number of yellow cards tendered by any particular chamber of the 41 across the European Union, although, of course, COSAC does keep a score of that. However, I can give him the news, if he was not previously aware of it, that we have gone a stage further this week, not formally by actually tendering but by indicating our readiness to tender a red card, in our sense of the
	word, in relation to what we feel is an inordinate breach of the subsidiarity principle regarding occupational pensions, as referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain. We will, if necessary, see the Commission in court on that matter. Machinery has been devised and there is a Memorandum of Understanding between the various parties but I think that the suit would probably be brought in the name of your Lordships’ House, if it was minded to do so. However, that is ongoing. Of course, the intention is to try to force a further discussion on the matter rather than to take it to court.
	The Minister also mentioned the noble Lord, Lord Hill, as did the noble Lord, Lord Bach. Even as we speak, I am, as they say, warming up to sign a letter to the noble Lord, Lord Hill. It will be very much on the basis the Minister indicated. This is not a confirmation hearing—we are not seeking that—but it would be to establish, and then to develop, a continuing relationship. The only gloss I put on that—and it is not purely for the record—is that, of course, all Commissioners have a duty to the European Union and all Commissioners will be very welcome as and when they are available in London or via electronic means. We shall seek to tap into their expertise and interests, as we have done in the recent past with a somewhat uneven result, although in certain cases that was very helpful.
	In relation to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, on the question of freedom of movement, my weekend reading will comprise looking very carefully at that particular balance of competences review, the articulation of the evidence and the conclusions of that. As a committee, we have sought not to conduct a running commentary on the balance of competences but we look at the details when they are issued and we may well want to take further steps. I also say to the noble Lord, Lord Bach, that we did indeed hold a pre-Council session with the Minister for Europe, David Lidington. I should make it clear to the House that that was an on-the-record public evidence session, as is all our work unless it is specifically to the contrary. It will also have occurred to your Lordships that that took place at a very fraught moment in the Council’s deliberation. Nevertheless, we felt that it was a marked success and it is one that we would seek to repeat on a future occasion. That issue may surface again when the substantive debate takes place on our report on the national parliaments, which is where the recommendation was derived from.
	I am very conscious of the lateness of the hour. I add only that we were given a tremendous structure 40 years ago. That has led to a building-up of experience but it does not lead to either complacency or stasis. We will continue to move forward and take new interest in the developing pattern of the European Union and its challenges and we will be ready to serve your Lordships’ House by looking into those when it is appropriate. I do not want to test your Lordships’ patience by prolonging my remarks further. In that spirit, I thank all those who have contributed to the debate.
	Motion agreed.

House adjourned at 7.29 pm.